Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
UnClick MCP Server

UnClick MCP Server

by malamutemayhem
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

mailchimp_search_members

Read-onlyIdempotent

Search Mailchimp subscribers by email, name, or query across all audiences or a specific list to locate members.

Instructions

Search for subscribers across all or a specific Mailchimp audience.

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": {
      "api_key": "<api_key>",
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "mailchimp_search_members"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
queryYesSearch query (email address, name, etc.)
api_keyYesMailchimp API key
list_idNoLimit search to a specific audience ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.1.9
  2. Removed
  3. Addedv0.1.5

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the description only needs to add context. It usefully discloses that the default scope spans all audiences and that list_id narrows it, but says nothing about result size, pagination, 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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The scope distinction is expressed immediately and nothing is wasted.

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 read-only search with full schema coverage and annotations, the definition is nearly complete. The only gaps are return-shape and result-limit details, which are minor given the absent output schema and standard search semantics.

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%, so all three parameters are already documented, including list_id as limiting search to a specific audience. The description reinforces the list_id behavior but adds no syntax or formatting detail beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb (search) and resource (subscribers), with scope (all or a specific Mailchimp audience). It is distinguishable from mailchimp_list_members by the search framing, but it never explicitly contrasts the two.

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?

Implies usage through the 'all or a specific audience' scope, which maps to omitting or supplying list_id. It does not say when to prefer this over mailchimp_list_members or what happens when no match is found.

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