Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Mautic MCP Connector

Mautic MCP Connector

by si-essence
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

mautic_get_report

Read-only

Retrieve a single Mautic report by ID, with optional date range and pagination, to inspect report data and statistics for a specific reporting period.

Instructions

Get one report. GET /api/reports/{id} with optional dateFrom, dateTo, limit, and page.

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": {
      "report_id": "<report_id>"
    },
    "name": "mautic_get_report"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pageNo
limitNoPage size. Capped by MAUTIC_MAX_LIMIT.
dateToNo
dateFromNo
report_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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 the endpoint and optional query params but doesn't describe pagination behavior, default limit, or what the report payload looks like.

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 tight sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler. It could still be slightly more informative given how little it says, but nothing is wasted.

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?

For a simple read-by-ID tool this is minimally adequate, but with low schema coverage and no output schema, an agent needs the date string format and page/limit defaults that the description omits. It leaves real gaps for correct invocation.

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 coverage is only 20% (only 'limit' is described, and even that just references MAUTIC_MAX_LIMIT). The description enumerates dateFrom, dateTo, limit, and page but adds no meaning — no date format, no default page size, and report_id (the required param) isn't explained at all.

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 report') and pins the exact endpoint GET /api/reports/{id}. This implicitly distinguishes it from mautic_list_reports (one vs. many) without naming the sibling 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 'Get one report' combined with the /{id} path implies usage for fetching a single report by ID, which contrasts with list_reports. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusion, and no mention of prerequisites or what a 'report' is in Mautic.

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