mailchimp_list_reportsList campaign reports (aggregate performance for sent campaigns). Paginated, with an optional type filter. REST: GET /reports.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | No | Filter reports by campaign type (Mailchimp `type`). | |
| count | No | Records to return (Mailchimp `count`; default 10, max 1000). | |
| offset | No | Number of records to skip (Mailchimp `offset`, for pagination). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by specifying that results are paginated, filterable by type, and limited to sent campaigns. It does not contradict the annotation and provides useful details for a read operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two concise sentences that front-load the core purpose, followed by pagination/filter details and the REST endpoint. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the essential aspects: what is listed, that it is paginated, the optional type filter, and the scope (sent campaigns). Although no output schema exists, the phrase 'aggregate performance' gives a useful hint about the contents. Minor gap: no explicit mention of the return structure, but adequate for a list tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides complete descriptions for all three parameters (type, count, offset), so with 100% schema coverage the baseline is 3. The description only mentions 'Paginated' and 'optional type filter', which adds minimal value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'List campaign reports' with a specific verb and resource, and the parenthetical 'aggregate performance for sent campaigns' clarifies exact scope. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_campaigns (which lists campaigns) and get_campaign_report (which retrieves a single report).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context that this is the tool to use when you need aggregate performance for sent campaigns, and notes pagination and optional type filtering. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, such as pointing to get_campaign_report for individual campaign details.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct resource-action pair, with clear distinctions between get/list/search for members and between add/update/archive for member changes. There is no meaningful overlap that would confuse an agent.
All tools follow the consistent mailchimp_verb_noun pattern in snake_case, making the action and resource predictable from the name. Deviation is minimal and stylistic.
With 18 tools, the count is slightly above the typical 3-15 range, but each tool covers a distinct Mailchimp resource (audiences, members, campaigns, reports, templates, automations, segments), so the breadth is justified.
The surface is heavily read-focused; write operations exist only for members (add, update, archive). Core workflows like creating or updating audiences, campaigns, templates, and segments are missing, which would hinder agents from performing typical Mailchimp tasks.