segment-mcp

list_destinations

Retrieve Segment destinations, optionally filtered by name/slug substring or source ID, to inspect where event data is routed.

Instructions

List Segment destinations. Optionally filter by a case-insensitive name/slug substring (e.g. 'intercom') and/or by sourceId.

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": "list_destinations"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	No	Case-insensitive substring matched against destination name, metadata name, and slug.
`sourceId`	No	Only return destinations attached to this source id.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Oct 20, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says nothing about authentication requirements, pagination, ordering, result limits, or what happens when no filters are supplied, focusing only on the filtering behavior already described 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.

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is two short sentences with no wasted words, and it front-loads the core purpose before describing optional filters. Every sentence earns its place.

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 two-parameter list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It covers purpose and parameter behavior but omits return shape, pagination, and read-only safety context that would help an agent invoke it with confidence.

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%, so the schema already documents both optional parameters in detail. The description adds only the example 'intercom' and the 'and/or' conjunction, which is marginal added value beyond the structured field definitions.

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 states a specific verb (List) and resource (Segment destinations), clearly indicating a collection-retrieval tool. It does not differentiate this list tool from siblings like get_destination or list_sources, so it falls short of the top score.

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?

The description explains optional filtering but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus get_destination for a single destination. There are no exclusions or routing cues, leaving the agent to infer that listing is appropriate from the name alone.

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

Deploy Server