Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
ActiveCampaign MCP

ActiveCampaign MCP

by ohneben
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

retrieve_a_custom_field_value

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve a custom field's value by its ID. Fetches data without modifying your ActiveCampaign account.

Instructions

🟢 READ-ONLY · Account Custom Field Data · GET /accountCustomFieldData/{id}

Retrieve a custom field value

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_value"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesID of the dealCustomFieldData to retrieve

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.1

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. Description adds 'Fetches data. Makes no changes,' which aligns with annotations but does not provide additional behavioral context such as permissions or response format.

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, front-loading key details (read-only indicator, endpoint, purpose). No wasted sentences, but the parameter description inconsistency in the schema slightly detracts.

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 operation with one parameter and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. However, it lacks any description of the return value structure, which would help an agent understand what is retrieved.

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 100% with a description for the 'id' parameter. The tool description does not add new semantics beyond the schema; it merely restates the purpose. Note: schema parameter description says 'dealCustomFieldData', which may be inconsistent with the tool's account focus.

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 clearly states it retrieves a custom field value for an account, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling 'retrieve_a_custom_deal_field_value' by specifying 'Account Custom Field Data'.

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 usage for reading account custom field data but lacks explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives like 'retrieve_a_custom_deal_field_value'. No when-not-to-use criteria 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