Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Mautic MCP Connector

Mautic MCP Connector

by si-essence
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

mautic_list_point_triggers

Read-only

Lists Mautic point triggers with pagination, search, ordering, and minimal-field options so you can inspect and select point-award rules.

Instructions

List point triggers. GET /api/points/triggers.

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_triggers"
  }
}

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

C2.8/5.0
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 structurally. The description contributes nothing beyond restating that this is a GET — no return volume, pagination behavior, or search semantics are disclosed.

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 short fragments, front-loaded and free of filler. It is arguably over-compressed, but nothing is redundant or buried.

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?

With no output schema and six parameters, the description should at least characterize the returned trigger objects and the three undocumented parameters. As written it is barely adequate: the annotations cover the read-only safety story, but the response shape and filtering options remain unexplained.

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 50%: limit, start and search are documented, but minimal, orderBy and orderByDir have no descriptions. The description text adds no parameter meaning whatsoever, so the undocumented half stays ambiguous (e.g. what 'minimal' returns, allowed orderBy fields).

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 point triggers") plus the underlying endpoint, so the agent knows exactly what data this returns. It does not distinguish the tool from near-neighbors like mautic_list_point_actions or mautic_list_webhook_triggers, which a reader could confuse with 'point triggers'.

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 at all: no mention of when to prefer this over mautic_list_point_actions, no prerequisites, no note about pagination or search behavior. The agent must infer usage purely from the name and endpoint.

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