Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Mautic MCP Connector

Mautic MCP Connector

by si-essence
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

mautic_get_email

Read-only

Retrieve a specific Mautic email by ID to inspect its details and metadata for campaign review or auditing.

Instructions

Get one email. GET /api/emails/{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": {
      "email_id": "<email_id>"
    },
    "name": "mautic_get_email"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
email_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description contributes only the REST path, not return shape, 404 behavior, or whether the entity is a template vs. a sent message.

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?

Two short sentences with no padding, but the terseness comes at the cost of under-specification rather than efficiency; the endpoint string is the only structural signal.

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?

For a simple single-parameter read tool the annotations cover safety and there is no output schema to explain, but the definition leaves the presumed return object and error/empty cases entirely undocumented, and the sole parameter is undefined in both schema and prose.

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 carries the full burden for email_id, yet all it offers is the generic "{id}" placeholder. It does not say the value is the email entity's numeric ID, nor how to obtain one (e.g., from mautic_list_emails).

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

"Get one email" names a verb and resource and the singular form implies a single-record fetch versus mautic_list_emails, but it never names that sibling or clarifies that "email" here means a Mautic email/message entity rather than a received message. The endpoint path adds little disambiguation for an agent choosing among ~48 tools.

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 guidance, no contrast with mautic_list_emails or mautic_get_email_stats, no prerequisites. The agent must infer that this is a lookup-by-ID call 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

Other Tools