Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Mautic MCP Connector

Mautic MCP Connector

by si-essence
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

mautic_get_contact_activity

Read-only

Retrieve activity for a single Mautic contact, filtered by date range, search query, or event types, to review engagement history and troubleshoot automation.

Instructions

List activity for one contact. GET /api/contacts/{id}/activity with filters[search], filters[includeEvents][], filters[excludeEvents][], filters[dateFrom], filters[dateTo], order[0], order[1], page, and limit.

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_activity"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pageNo
limitNoPage size. Capped by MAUTIC_MAX_LIMIT.
orderNoSort column and direction. Sent as order[0] and order[1].
dateToNoEnd, Y-m-d H:i:s.
searchNoMautic search string or search command.
dateFromNoStart, Y-m-d H:i:s.
contact_idYesMautic contact ID.
excludeEventsNoEvent type names to exclude, sent as filters[excludeEvents][].
includeEventsNoEvent type names to include, sent as filters[includeEvents][].

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the underlying REST endpoint mapping and mentions pagination and date filtering, but says nothing about result ordering, how many events come back, or whether event names must match a known vocabulary. With annotations carrying safety, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

The first sentence is a model of front-loaded clarity. The second is a nine-item parameter dump that largely duplicates schema documentation already at 89% coverage, so it costs length without earning it.

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?

With 9 parameters, no output schema, and adequate annotations, the description covers enough to invoke the tool but leaves a real gap: an agent has no idea what valid event type names are for includeEvents/excludeEvents, which is the hardest part of using this tool. Nothing about the return shape is described, though the absence of an output schema makes that a lesser omission.

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 89%, so the schema already explains page, limit, order, dateFrom, dateTo, search, and the include/exclude event arrays. The description only restates those names with their wire-format brackets (filters[includeEvents][] etc.), adding no syntax or semantics the schema lacks. The baseline 3 is correct.

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 opens with a specific verb plus resource and scope: 'List activity for one contact.' That distinguishes it from the account-wide sibling mautic_list_activity, although the sibling is never named explicitly.

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?

The phrase 'for one contact' implies you must already know the contact ID, so the natural predecessor is mautic_search_contacts or mautic_get_contact. The description never states this, never contrasts it with mautic_list_activity, and gives no when-not guidance.

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