Skip to main content
Glama
@kieksme/listmonk-mcp

@kieksme/listmonk-mcp

by kieksme

Send Subscriber Opt-in Email

listmonk_send_subscriber_optin

Sends a double opt-in confirmation email to a subscriber by ID, letting them confirm pending list subscriptions.

Instructions

Sends a double opt-in confirmation e-mail to a subscriber for their pending list subscriptions.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "listmonk_send_subscriber_optin"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesNumeric id.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.3.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare openWorldHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the agent knows this is a non-repeatable write with an external effect. The description usefully confirms the external side effect (an outbound e-mail) and adds the 'pending subscriptions' precondition, but says nothing about what happens when no pending subscriptions exist, error behavior, or rate limits.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One tightly written sentence that front-loads the action and resource, with zero redundant or filler wording.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-parameter tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description conveys the essential action, the outbound nature, and the pending-subscription precondition. Minor gaps remain around outcome and failure behavior, but nothing critical to calling it correctly is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single `id` param is documented, so the schema already does the work. The description implies the id belongs to the subscriber being e-mailed but never states that explicitly, adding little meaning beyond the schema baseline.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb and resource ('Sends a double opt-in confirmation e-mail') and scopes it to 'pending list subscriptions', which separates it from siblings like listmonk_manage_subscriber_list_membership. It never names the closest sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The phrase 'for their pending list subscriptions' implies when this tool applies (a subscriber already has unconfirmed list memberships), but there is no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative such as the list-membership management tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools