Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
ActiveCampaign MCP

ActiveCampaign MCP

by ohneben
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

retrieve_site_tracking_code

Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetches the site tracking code for your ActiveCampaign account. Use to obtain the JavaScript snippet for tracking website visits.

Instructions

🟢 READ-ONLY · Site Tracking · GET /siteTracking/code

Retrieve site tracking code

Fetches data. Makes no changes to your ActiveCampaign account.

Get site tracking code

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "retrieve_site_tracking_code"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoNumber of results per page (ActiveCampaign default 20, max 100).
offsetNoZero-based offset into the result set for pagination.
ordersNoSort order as an object, e.g. {"email":"ASC"} → orders[email]=ASC.
filtersNoField filters as an object, e.g. {"name":"ecom"} → filters[name]=ecom.

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 declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds 'Fetches data. Makes no changes', which reinforces but does not extend beyond what annotations provide.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Contains repetitive statements ('Retrieve site tracking code' and 'Get site tracking code' are redundant). Could be more concise without losing clarity.

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?

No output schema and the description does not indicate what the endpoint returns (e.g., a code string or URL). The parameters imply a list response, but the tool's name suggests a single code—ambiguity remains.

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?

All 4 parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage), so the description adds no additional meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the action ('Retrieve') and resource ('site tracking code') with a specific verb. It includes a READ-ONLY label and HTTP method, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like retrieve_site_tracking_status or enable_disable_site_tracking. The description only states it's read-only, which is implicit.

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