List Mailchimp email campaigns and filter by status or audience ID to locate relevant campaigns.
List Mailchimp email campaigns, optionally filtered by status or audience.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | No | Number of campaigns (default: 10) | |
| status | No | Filter by campaign status | |
| api_key | Yes | Mailchimp API key | |
| list_id | No | Filter by audience ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.9v0.1.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the filtering scope and says nothing about pagination limits, default page size behavior, or result ordering.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single well-formed sentence with the resource front-loaded and the optional filter scope trailing. No waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema exists, but with full annotation coverage and fully described parameters, the description tells the agent enough to invoke it correctly. It could note pagination or that api_key is required, but the essentials are present.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so status and list_id filtering are already documented. The description merely restates those filters without adding format or semantics beyond the schema, which meets the baseline for high-coverage schemas.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('Mailchimp email campaigns') with the optional filter scope. It is distinguishable from read siblings like mailchimp_get_campaign and write siblings like mailchimp_create_campaign, though it doesn't explicitly name them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'optionally filtered by status or audience' implies when filters apply, but there's no explicit guidance on when to choose this over mailchimp_get_campaign or how to page through large result sets.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.