Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Mautic MCP Connector

Mautic MCP Connector

by si-essence
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

mautic_add_contact_to_campaign

Idempotent

Add a Mautic contact to a campaign by campaign and contact ID, with an optional dry-run preview before confirming the write.

Instructions

Add a contact to a campaign. POST /api/campaigns/{campaignId}/contact/{contactId}/add. Omit confirm for a dry-run preview.

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": {
      "campaign_id": "<campaign_id>",
      "contact_id": "<contact_id>"
    },
    "name": "mautic_add_contact_to_campaign"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
confirmNoSet to the boolean true to execute the write. Omit this field for a dry-run preview. false and the string true are rejected.
contact_idYes
campaign_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the critical non-obvious behavior that omitting confirm produces only a preview rather than a write, which is exactly the kind of trap an agent needs flagged. It does not say what happens when the contact is already in the campaign or what the preview returns, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, followed by the endpoint and the dry-run caveat. The raw POST path is marginally useful for identification but is the least valuable sentence for tool selection.

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 three-parameter mutation tool with annotations present and no output schema, the description covers the action, the endpoint and the confirm/preview gate. Missing only edge-case behavior such as duplicate membership or side effects on campaign events.

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 33%, with only confirm documented in the schema, but the two undocumented parameters are plain numeric IDs whose types and constraints are fully expressed in the schema. The description reinforces the confirm dry-run semantics but adds no meaning about contact_id or campaign_id beyond what the schema shows.

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 and resource (add a contact to a campaign) and is self-evidently the inverse of the sibling mautic_remove_contact_from_campaign. It does not explicitly name any sibling, but the action is unambiguous without opening the schema.

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?

Usage is implied by the name and by the note that omitting confirm yields a dry-run, but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives such as mautic_add_contact_to_segment or mautic_change_contact_stage. The agent must infer the selection criteria from sibling names.

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