Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Mautic MCP Connector

Mautic MCP Connector

by si-essence
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

mautic_get_campaign

Read-only

Retrieve a single Mautic campaign by its ID to inspect details such as name, status, and settings for reporting, auditing, or workflow decisions.

Instructions

Get one campaign. GET /api/campaigns/{id}.

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>"
    },
    "name": "mautic_get_campaign"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
campaign_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds essentially nothing behavioral beyond restating the HTTP endpoint: no return shape, no behavior when the campaign is missing, no auth or rate-limit context.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and free of filler. Nothing is wasted, though little is delivered either.

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?

This is a low-complexity single-record read with good annotation coverage and no output schema, so the description is minimally adequate. It still leaves the agent guessing about the returned campaign shape and error behavior.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the single campaign_id parameter. The "{id}" in the endpoint path at least signals that the value is a path identifier, but it does not explain the accepted integer-or-numeric-string format or where valid IDs come from.

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?

"Get one campaign" states a specific verb and resource, and the endpoint reference confirms it fetches a single campaign by identifier, which implicitly separates it from mautic_list_campaigns. It stops short of naming that sibling explicitly, so an agent must infer the distinction from the names alone.

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 only implied: fetch a single campaign when you already have its ID. There is no explicit statement about when to prefer this over mautic_list_campaigns, nor any note that the ID must come from a prior lookup.

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