Mautic MCP Connector

mautic_list_reports

Read-only

List Mautic reports with pagination, search, and sorting to review campaign, email, and performance data.

Instructions

List reports. GET /api/reports.

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_reports"
  }
}

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
`orderByDir`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 5, 2026

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, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond them - no pagination behavior, no note on result size, no indication that it hits the Mautic instance over the open world. 'GET /api/reports' is redundant API trivia rather than behavioral context.

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?

It is short and front-loaded, but the brevity is under-specification rather than efficiency. The second sentence ('GET /api/reports') consumes space without adding decision-relevant value for an agent.

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 a dense sibling set including mautic_get_report and various list endpoints, this description is far too thin. An agent gets no help understanding result shape, sorting options, or how this differs from the single-report getter.

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 in the schema, while minimal, orderBy and orderByDir have no description anywhere. The tool description contributes zero parameter meaning, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

The description gives a verb and resource ('List reports'), which is specific enough to know it returns a collection of Mautic reports. However, it largely restates the tool name and offers no differentiation from the sibling mautic_get_report or from reporting-adjacent tools like mautic_get_stats and mautic_list_stat_tables. Barely above tautology.

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 indication of when to call this versus mautic_get_report, and no mention of pagination or search usage patterns despite six optional parameters. The agent must infer everything 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