Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
ActiveCampaign MCP

ActiveCampaign MCP

by ohneben
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

retrieve_a_custom_field_contact

Read-onlyIdempotent

Get a custom field's details by providing its ID, enabling you to view field configuration without modifying your account.

Instructions

🟢 READ-ONLY · Fields · GET /fields/{id}

Get a custom field by ID

Fetches data. Makes no changes to your ActiveCampaign account.

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": "retrieve_a_custom_field_contact"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesID of the field to retrieve

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.1

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc. The description adds the HTTP method 'GET /fields/{id}' and states 'Fetches data. Makes no changes.' which reinforces but does not substantially extend the annotations.

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?

The description is concise and front-loaded with the read-only indicator, resource type, and HTTP method. It efficiently communicates the tool's function without fluff.

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?

For a simple read tool with rich annotations, the description covers the basics. However, it fails to clarify that 'contact' in the tool name refers to contact custom fields, which may cause confusion. The lack of output schema is not an issue here.

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 100% with a single parameter 'id' described as 'ID of the field to retrieve'. The description adds no further semantics beyond the schema.

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?

The description clearly states the tool retrieves a custom field by ID using 'Get a custom field by ID'. It distinguishes itself from write tools but not from similar 'retrieve' siblings like 'retrieve_a_custom_field_meta' or 'retrieve_a_custom_field_value'.

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 tool versus other retrieve tools. No exclusions or context provided.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools