listmonk-mcp

Search bounces

bounces_search

Read-onlyIdempotent

Search recorded email bounces newest first, filtering by bounce type (soft, hard, complaint) or campaign ID to diagnose delivery issues.

Instructions

Recorded bounces, newest first. Filter by bounce type (soft, hard, complaint) and campaign.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "bounces_search"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`page`	No
`type`	No
`per_page`	No
`campaign_id`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 1, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful 'newest first' ordering guarantee, but omits pagination behavior, result size limits, and what an empty result means.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Two compact sentences with the resource and ordering front-loaded and filters second; no filler. It is terse to the point of omitting a verb, but nothing is wasted.

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?

With no output schema and 0% parameter description coverage, the description should do more to explain the paginated result shape and the page/per_page controls. An agent can call it, but will be guessing about pagination and total counts.

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 0%, so the description carries some burden; it does spell out the valid type values (soft, hard, complaint) and that campaign refers to campaign_id. However page and per_page are never mentioned, leaving half the parameters explained only by their schema constraints and defaults.

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 the resource (bounces) with an explicit ordering (newest first) and the two filter dimensions, which lets an agent distinguish it from bounce_get or bounce_delete. It never uses a verb like 'search' or 'list', so the intended read-and-filter behavior is inferred from the name rather than stated.

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?

The filter list implies this is the tool for finding bounces by type or campaign, but there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus bounce_get (single record) or other search tools, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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