mailchimp_list_segmentsList an audience's segments and tags (saved segments include static tags). Paginated. REST: GET /lists/{list_id}/segments.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | No | Records to return (Mailchimp `count`; default 10, max 1000). | |
| offset | No | Number of records to skip (Mailchimp `offset`, for pagination). | |
| list_id | Yes | The audience (list) id. |
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?
Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description adds meaningful behavioral context: it states the result is paginated and clarifies that saved segments include static tags, which affects the data returned. The REST endpoint also gives implementation detail.
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 a single sentence plus the REST endpoint, front-loaded with the action and resource. Every clause adds value with no waste or 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?
For a simple list operation with full parameter schema, a read-only annotation, and no output schema, the description covers purpose, pagination, and REST method. The note about static tags adds useful domain detail, making the tool self-sufficient for an agent.
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?
All three parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage), so the schema fully handles parameter semantics. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond mentioning pagination, which is already reflected in the count/offset parameters.
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 uses a specific verb 'List' and clearly identifies the resource as 'an audience's segments and tags', including the nuance that saved segments include static tags. This unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling list tools for members, campaigns, and reports.
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 implies the tool should be used to retrieve segments and tags for an audience and notes that it is paginated, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or mention any exclusions. No sibling alternatives are referenced.
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.