listmonk-mcp

Delete subscriber

subscriber_delete

Destructive

Permanently delete a subscriber by ID, including their list subscriptions and campaign history, to remove all related data from Listmonk.

Instructions

Permanently delete a subscriber by id, with their list subscriptions and campaign history.

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": "subscriber_delete"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 1, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description earns credit beyond that by disclosing the cascade: list subscriptions and campaign history are deleted too, which is the critical fact an agent needs before calling a destructive tool. It does not mention recoverability or permission requirements.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and the cascade scope. Every clause carries information; nothing is padding.

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 one-parameter destructive mutation with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient: it tells the agent the operation is permanent and cascades. The remaining omissions are the identity semantics of 'id' and any precondition or response information.

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 single 'id' parameter is undocumented in the schema itself. The description only says deletion is 'by id', adding little about what identifier is expected (subscriber id vs. email/uuid) or whether it must be a positive integer. That leaves a real gap, but the parameter is simple enough that a 3 is fair.

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 ('permanently delete') and resource ('a subscriber by id') and adds scope: the deletion takes list subscriptions and campaign history with it. An agent can distinguish this from subscriber_get/subscriber_update/subscribers_lists_change. Sibling differentiation is implied by the verb rather than stated, so it stops 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus e.g. subscribers_lists_change (which would detach a subscriber from a list without destroying the record), nor on prerequisites such as confirmation or permissions. 'Permanently' hints at caution but does not tell the agent what to do with it.

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