listmonk-mcp

Send campaign test

campaign_test_send

Send a test copy of a campaign to up to 10 email addresses to verify content and targeting before sending the real mailing.

Instructions

Send a test copy of a campaign to up to 10 email addresses. Sends real mail to those addresses.

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>",
      "emails": "<emails>"
    },
    "name": "campaign_test_send"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes
`emails`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 1, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already mark this as non-read-only, open-world, and non-idempotent. The description adds the important behavioral fact that it sends real email to the listed addresses, which is valuable beyond the annotations, though it does not discuss repeat-send behavior or campaign-state constraints.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed immediately by the critical real-mail side effect. No unnecessary text.

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 two-parameter operation with annotations already covering mutability and external effects, the description supplies the key missing context: it sends actual email and is limited to test recipients. It could say more about prerequisites such as campaign status, but is largely complete.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It clarifies that 'id' refers to a campaign and 'emails' are recipient addresses, but it does not document the positive-integer constraint on id or add much beyond the schema's email format and maxItems.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description states a specific verb and resource: send a test copy of a campaign. The phrase 'test copy' distinguishes this from campaign_set_status and other campaign mutation siblings.

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 description implies this is for previewing/testing a campaign before real sending, but it does not explicitly state when to use it instead of campaign_set_status, tx_send, or smtp_test.

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