Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mailchimp-mcp

mailchimp-mcp

by livemau5
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

schedule_campaign

Schedule a Mailchimp campaign to send at a specific time by providing campaign ID and ISO 8601 send time.

Instructions

Schedule a campaign to send at a specific time. Returns compact confirmation by default — set verbose=true for full response.

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": {
      "campaign_id": "<campaign_id>",
      "schedule_time": "<schedule_time>"
    },
    "name": "schedule_campaign"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
verboseNoReturn full API response instead of compact summary (default false)
campaign_idYesCampaign ID
schedule_timeYesSend time in ISO 8601 format (e.g., '2026-03-15T10:00:00+00:00')

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the default return format (compact confirmation) and how to get the full response (verbose=true). However, it does not mention potential side effects like overwriting an existing schedule, prerequisites, or cancellation behavior.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and immediately followed by response behavior. No filler or redundant information.

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 simple scheduling tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description covers the action, default output, and how to get more detail. It lacks some context about prerequisites or effects on existing schedules, but is adequate for straightforward use.

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 coverage is 100%, with detailed descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds no significant semantic meaning beyond the schema, though it does reiterate the verbose toggle behavior.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the action: 'Schedule a campaign to send at a specific time.' This uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from sibling tools like send_campaign (immediate send) and create_campaign (creation).

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?

The description clearly implies the use case: scheduling for a future time. It does not explicitly reference alternatives or for when not to use it, but the phrase 'at a specific time' contrasts with immediate sending.

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