Mautic MCP Connector

mautic_list_activity

Read-only

List and filter contact activity across all contacts by search, event type, date range, sorting, and pagination to review engagement or audit contact events.

Instructions

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

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "mautic_list_activity"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`page`	No
`limit`	No	Page size. Capped by MAUTIC_MAX_LIMIT.
`order`	No	Sort column and direction. Sent as order[0] and order[1].
`dateTo`	No	End, Y-m-d H:i:s.
`search`	No	Mautic search string or search command.
`dateFrom`	No	Start, Y-m-d H:i:s.
`excludeEvents`	No	Event type names to exclude, sent as filters[excludeEvents][].
`includeEvents`	No	Event type names to include, sent as filters[includeEvents][].

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 5, 2026

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

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 nothing behavioral beyond that: it does not describe result volume (this is a global, potentially huge listing), pagination expectations, ordering defaults, or any rate/limit behavior despite the 'Capped by MAUTIC_MAX_LIMIT' concern.

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 front-loaded and useful. The second sentence is a bare enumeration of parameter names already documented in the schema, which consumes the majority of the text without adding decision-relevant information.

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?

Eight optional parameters, no output schema, and a global-scope listing tool; the description does not say what an activity entry looks like, what event types exist, or how results are ordered or paginated. An agent can technically call it but cannot confidently target the includeEvents/excludeEvents filters or predict the shape of the response.

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 coverage is 88%, so parameters are largely self-documenting. The description's parameter sentence mostly restates the wire format (filters[includeEvents][], order[0]/order[1]), which the schema already encodes in its own descriptions. It adds no meaning for the most semantically demanding parameters, such as which event type names are valid for includeEvents/excludeEvents or what a 'search command' string looks like.

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 ('List activity') and scopes it ('for all contacts'), which implicitly contrasts with the per-contact sibling mautic_get_contact_activity. It never names that sibling or explains what an 'activity' record contains, so differentiation is by implication rather than explicit routing.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of the obvious alternative (mautic_get_contact_activity for a single contact). An agent must infer from the phrase 'for all contacts' alone which of the two activity tools to pick.

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

Deploy Server