listmonk-mcp

Create mailing list

list_create

Create a Listmonk mailing list by setting its name, public or private visibility, and single or double opt-in preference.

Instructions

Create a mailing list. type is 'public' or 'private'; optin is 'single' or 'double'.

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": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "list_create"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`name`	Yes
`tags`	No
`type`	No	private
`optin`	No	single
`description`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 1, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the description's bar is lower, but it adds nothing: no mention of what happens on duplicate names, what the default type/optin actually mean, or what is returned. The only substantive sentence restates values already present in the schema.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. It is terse to the point of being telegraphic, but nothing is wasted.

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 mutation tool with a 5-parameter schema, no output schema and 0% schema coverage, the description omits most of what an agent needs: the semantics of tags and description, default values, and error behavior on duplicate list names.

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%, so the description must compensate, yet it only mentions 'type' and 'optin' and merely echoes their enum values already visible in the schema. The required 'name', plus 'tags' and 'description', are given no meaning at all.

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+resource ('Create a mailing list'), which cleanly separates it from list_update, list_delete and lists_list. It doesn't explicitly name those siblings, so it falls just short of a 5.

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 on when to use this versus list_update or lists_list, no mention of prerequisites such as authentication or uniqueness of the name. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name.

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