Mautic MCP Connector

mautic_get_contact

Read-only

Retrieve a single Mautic contact by ID to view its details, enabling targeted lookups and contact management through the Mautic REST API.

Instructions

Get one contact. GET /api/contacts/{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": {
      "contact_id": "<contact_id>"
    },
    "name": "mautic_get_contact"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`contact_id`	Yes	Mautic contact ID.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 5, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description adds only the underlying REST endpoint path, which is minor developer-facing context, and says nothing about the returned contact shape or what happens when the ID is unknown. With no output schema present, the absence of any return-value or error behavior is a real gap.

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 with the core action front-loaded and no filler. The second sentence (raw endpoint path) is largely redundant with the schema and adds little for an agent, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

This is a simple single-parameter read, so it doesn't need much, but with no output schema the description should at least gesture at what a contact record contains. It omits return shape, not-found behavior, and any dependency (e.g. needing a valid contact ID obtained from search).

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% and the single parameter carries its own description ('Mautic contact ID'), so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds nothing about ID format or whether zero/non-existent IDs error, though the endpoint path loosely reinforces that the param is a path identifier.

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: 'Get one contact', disambiguating single-record retrieval from list/search siblings by implication. It does not name a specific sibling (e.g. mautic_search_contacts) so it stops short of a 5.

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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing guidance is given. The GET path implies an ID is required, but the agent must infer on its own that this is for known-ID lookup rather than discovery via mautic_search_contacts.

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

Deploy Server