listmonk-mcp

Get bounce

bounce_get

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve a single bounce record by ID from a Listmonk instance to inspect delivery failure details.

Instructions

One bounce record by id.

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "bounce_get"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 1, 2026

TDQS

C2.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — no note on behavior for a missing/invalid id, no auth or rate-limit context.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

It is a single short fragment with no waste, but it is under-specified rather than efficient — there is essentially only one clause and no front-loaded verb to anchor it.

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 retrieval tool with no output schema and no annotations describing returns, the description should say what a bounce record contains or what happens on not-found. Neither is present, leaving the agent with little beyond the id contract.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description only repeats 'by id' without adding format, range, or source guidance (e.g., where bounce ids come from, whether ids are campaign-scoped). It does not compensate for the undocumented parameter.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description states that it retrieves a single bounce record by id, which implicitly distinguishes it from bounces_search (plural) and bounce_delete. However, it never uses an explicit verb like 'get'/'fetch' and largely restates the tool name plus the obvious parameter.

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?

There is no indication of when to use this versus bounces_search or when a bounce id would be known. No alternatives, prerequisites, or conditions are named.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.