Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Mautic MCP Connector

Mautic MCP Connector

by si-essence
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

mautic_list_point_actions

Read-only

List Mautic point actions with pagination, search, and ordering to review or select contact scoring rules.

Instructions

List point actions. GET /api/points.

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_point_actions"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoPage size. Defaults to 30. Capped by MAUTIC_MAX_LIMIT.
startNoRow offset. Defaults to 0.
searchNoMautic search string or search command.
minimalNo
orderByNo
orderByDirNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds nothing beyond restating the HTTP endpoint — no note on pagination behavior, the MAUTIC_MAX_LIMIT cap interacting with limit, or what the response contains.

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 fragments, so there is no padding, but the second fragment (the endpoint path) does little work for an agent and the whole thing is under-specified rather than genuinely efficient.

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?

With six parameters, no output schema, and nobody documenting half the parameters, the description needed to carry substantial weight and does not. An agent can attempt the call but has no guidance on sorting, minimal mode, or what listing point actions returns.

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 only 50%: minimal, orderBy, and orderByDir carry no description at all in either the schema or the description. The description must compensate for that gap but mentions no parameters, leaving the agent to guess valid values and sort semantics.

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?

"List point actions" names a verb and resource, which is enough to know the general shape of the call. But it never distinguishes point actions from the close sibling mautic_list_point_triggers, and "GET /api/points" muddies the resource identity by referring to points rather than point actions.

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 statement of when to use this versus mautic_list_point_triggers or mautic_adjust_contact_points, and no prerequisites. The agent must infer usage purely from the tool name.

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