Mautic MCP Connector

mautic_list_notes

Read-only

List notes from a Mautic instance, optionally filtered by contact ID, with pagination, search, and sorting controls for reviewing contact or system notes.

Instructions

List notes. GET /api/notes, or GET /api/contacts/{id}/notes when contact_id is set.

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_notes"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	No	Page size. Defaults to 30. Capped by MAUTIC_MAX_LIMIT.
`start`	No	Row offset. Defaults to 0.
`search`	No	Mautic search string or search command.
`minimal`	No
`orderBy`	No
`contact_id`	No
`orderByDir`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 5, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

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 genuinely useful behavior beyond that: the endpoint actually switches depending on whether contact_id is present. It does not mention pagination behavior or return shape, so it goes only modestly beyond the annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the routing detail. Nothing is wasted and nothing is buried.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a read-only paginated list tool with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description covers the essential routing behavior an agent needs. The remaining gap is documentation of the three undescribed parameters, which is a real but limited 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?

With 43% schema coverage across 7 parameters, the description must compensate for real gaps. It does clarify contact_id semantics well (it changes the target endpoint), but minimal, orderBy, and orderByDir are undocumented in both the schema and the description, and minimal in particular gives an agent no clue.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ("List notes") and even names the underlying REST endpoints. It does not distinguish this from the sibling mautic_create_note or explain how listing notes relates to mautic_get_contact_activity, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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 conditional clause "or GET /api/contacts/{id}/notes when contact_id is set" implicitly tells the agent to supply contact_id to scope results to one contact, and to omit it for all notes. There is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives guidance and no stated exclusions or prerequisites.

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

Deploy Server