ActiveCampaign MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation3/5
The tools have some overlap that could cause confusion, particularly between get_contact_by_email and get_contact_by_id which serve similar purposes but use different identifiers, and between get_contact_tracking_logs and get_contact_tracking_logs_by_email which are essentially duplicates with different input methods. However, the descriptions clarify the distinctions, preventing complete ambiguity.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case, using 'get' or 'search' as verbs and clearly specifying the target (e.g., contact, tracking_logs). This predictability makes it easy for agents to understand and use the toolset without confusion.
Tool Count4/5
With 5 tools, the count is reasonable for a contact management server, but it feels slightly thin as it only covers read operations (get and search) without create, update, or delete functions. This limits the scope but is still within an acceptable range for a focused purpose.
Completeness2/5
The toolset is severely incomplete for a CRM domain like ActiveCampaign, as it only includes retrieval and search functions for contacts and tracking logs. There are significant gaps in CRUD operations—no create, update, or delete tools—which will likely cause agent failures when trying to perform full contact lifecycle management.
Average 2.9/5 across 5 of 5 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it searches for a contact by email but doesn't describe what happens if no contact is found (e.g., returns null, error), if it's case-sensitive, rate limits, authentication needs, or the return format. For a lookup tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its 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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple lookup tool and front-loaded with the key action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, 100% schema coverage) but lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what is returned (e.g., contact object, error handling) or behavioral aspects like idempotency. For a tool that interacts with an external service, more context on outcomes and constraints is needed to be fully helpful.
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?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'email' documented as 'Email do contato a ser buscado'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as format requirements or examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't compensate with extra context.
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 clearly states the action ('Busca' - search) and resource ('contato no ActiveCampaign'), making the purpose understandable. It specifies the search criterion ('pelo email'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_contact_by_id. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from search_contacts, which might also support email searches.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_contact_by_id or search_contacts. It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as requiring an existing contact with that email, or exclusions, like what happens if multiple contacts share the same email. Usage is implied by the name but not explicitly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'busca' (search) implies a read-only operation, the description doesn't clarify if this is safe (non-destructive), whether it requires specific permissions, or if there are rate limits. It also doesn't describe the return format (e.g., list of logs with fields) or pagination behavior beyond what the schema hints at with 'limit' and 'offset'. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its 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?
The description is a single, clear sentence in Portuguese: 'Busca os logs de eventos/tracking de um contato específico.' It's front-loaded with the core purpose, has zero wasted words, and is appropriately sized for the tool's function. Every part of the sentence earns its place by specifying what is being searched and for what resource.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like safety or permissions, provide usage guidelines relative to siblings, or explain the output (since there's no output schema). For a tool that retrieves logs with filtering and pagination, more context is needed to help an agent use it effectively, especially with sibling tools like 'get_contact_tracking_logs_by_email' present.
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?
The schema description coverage is 100%, meaning all parameters are documented in the schema itself (e.g., 'contactId' for the contact ID, 'dateRange' for filtering by date, 'eventType' with enum values). The description doesn't add any additional meaning beyond this, such as explaining parameter interactions or usage examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline score is 3, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Busca os logs de eventos/tracking de um contato específico' (Search the event/tracking logs of a specific contact). It specifies the verb 'busca' (search) and the resource 'logs de eventos/tracking' (event/tracking logs), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_contact_by_email' or 'search_contacts' by focusing on logs rather than contact details. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'get_contact_tracking_logs_by_email', which appears to be a similar tool with a different parameter approach.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention siblings like 'get_contact_tracking_logs_by_email' or explain scenarios where this tool is preferred over others (e.g., when you have a contact ID vs. email). There's also no information about prerequisites, such as needing an existing contact, or exclusions for usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral information. It mentions searching logs but doesn't disclose important traits like whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are needed, if there are rate limits, what format the logs return in, or how pagination works (though parameters suggest it).
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence in Portuguese that directly states the tool's purpose. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core functionality. There's no wasted verbiage or unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the logs contain, their format, or how results are structured. While the schema covers parameters well, the description fails to provide necessary context about the tool's behavior and output.
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 the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema (email for searching, optional eventType filtering, limit/offset for pagination). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 clearly states the action ('Busca' - searches) and resource ('logs de eventos/tracking de um contato'), specifying it's done by email. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_contact_tracking_logs' (which likely uses a different identifier) or 'search_contacts' (which might have broader search capabilities).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_contact_tracking_logs' (which might use ID instead of email) or 'search_contacts' (which might search across multiple contacts). There's no context about prerequisites or limitations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions filtering capability ('com filtros') but doesn't describe what the search returns (full contact objects? limited fields?), pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence in Portuguese that states the core functionality without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple search tool and front-loads the essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the search returns, how results are structured, whether there's pagination beyond the 'limit' parameter, or how the search interacts with the ActiveCampaign platform. The agent lacks sufficient context to understand the tool's full behavior.
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%, with both parameters well-documented in the schema: 'limit' with default value and 'query' with search scope examples. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only implying filtering capability without specifying how filters work beyond the 'query' parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Busca contatos no ActiveCampaign com filtros' (Search contacts in ActiveCampaign with filters). It specifies the verb ('busca' - search), resource ('contatos' - contacts), and platform ('ActiveCampaign'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_contact_by_email' or 'get_contact_by_id' which appear to be more specific lookup methods.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. It doesn't mention alternatives, prerequisites, or specific contexts where this search tool is preferable over the more targeted 'get_contact_by_email' or 'get_contact_by_id' tools. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a search operation, implying it's read-only and non-destructive, but doesn't confirm this explicitly. It lacks details on error handling (e.g., what happens if the ID is invalid), rate limits, authentication requirements, or return format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence in Portuguese that directly states the tool's function. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and wastes no words, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks behavioral details and usage guidance. For a simple lookup tool, this might suffice, but it doesn't provide a complete picture for optimal agent 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?
The description adds minimal value beyond the input schema. It mentions 'pelo ID' (by ID), which aligns with the schema's 'contactId' parameter, but doesn't provide additional context like ID format or examples. With 100% schema description coverage (the schema fully documents the single parameter), the baseline is 3, as the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Busca um contato no ActiveCampaign pelo ID' (Search for a contact in ActiveCampaign by ID). It specifies the verb (search), resource (contact), and method (by ID). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_contact_by_email, which is a similar lookup by different identifier.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like get_contact_by_email (for email-based lookup) or search_contacts (for broader searches), nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![activecampaign-mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/mmarqueti/activecampaign-mcp-server/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/mmarqueti/activecampaign-mcp-server)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![activecampaign-mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/mmarqueti/activecampaign-mcp-server/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/mmarqueti/activecampaign-mcp-server)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/mmarqueti/activecampaign-mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server