Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
@kieksme/listmonk-mcp

@kieksme/listmonk-mcp

by kieksme
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Update Settings

listmonk_update_settings
DestructiveIdempotent

Updates Listmonk server settings by merging partial keys into the current configuration, so you can change specific fields without resetting the rest. Confirm changes with the user before saving.

Instructions

Updates Listmonk server settings. THIS CAN AFFECT MAIL DELIVERY AND SERVER BEHAVIOR SERVER-WIDE — confirm the exact keys/values with the user before calling. Fetch current values with listmonk_get_settings first.

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": {
      "settings": "<settings>"
    },
    "name": "listmonk_update_settings"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
settingsYesSettings fields to update, using the exact dotted keys Listmonk uses internally (e.g. 'app.site_name', 'smtp'). Fetch the current object with listmonk_get_settings first, modify only the keys you need, and pass them here. This tool fetches the current full settings object and merges your keys into it before saving — Listmonk's own PUT /settings replaces the ENTIRE object, so a naive partial submission would silently reset every unspecified field to blank/off; the merge step is what makes a partial update safe. Always confirm with the user before changing SMTP/server settings.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.3.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is structured. The description adds real value beyond that by warning the change is server-wide and can affect mail delivery, and by mandating user confirmation. It still doesn't explain return behavior, but the annotations carry much of the burden.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the impact warning, and every clause adds actionable information: what it does, the risk, the confirmation requirement, and the fetch-first step. Nothing is redundant.

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 single-object mutation with destructiveness and merge semantics fully covered by annotations and the schema, the description supplies the critical operational warning and preconditions. It is complete enough to call correctly, though it could note that the merge is what makes partial updates safe to reinforce behavioral confidence.

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 schema itself richly documents the 'settings' object, its dotted-key convention, and the merge-before-save semantics. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Updates') and resource ('Listmonk server settings') and points to the sibling listmonk_get_settings for the read counterpart. It clearly distinguishes itself from the read tool, though it does not explicitly contrast with other write tools like listmonk_update_campaign.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It gives concrete prerequisites ('Fetch current values with listmonk_get_settings first') and a strong procedural gate ('confirm the exact keys/values with the user before calling'). It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use guidance, but the context of use is clear.

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