mailerlite_list_segmentsList segments. Page-paginated. MailerLite API: GET /segments.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Page number (page-based pagination). | |
| limit | No | Max segments per page (default 25). |
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows it's safe. Description adds 'page-paginated' which provides basic pagination info, but no details on rate limits, auth requirements, or response structure.
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?
Two sentences with no wasted words. Efficiently conveys the action and pagination method.
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?
Given the simple tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description is sufficient. It states the main purpose and pagination, though it could mention that it returns a list of segment objects.
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?
Schema covers both parameters with descriptions (page and limit). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score applies.
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 segments' with verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools that list other entities like groups or subscribers.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, such as whether segments differ from groups or lists. No when-not-to-use or prerequisites.
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 specific resource and action (e.g., subscriber, group, campaign) with no ambiguity. Even similar tools like list_subscribers and list_group_subscribers are clearly differentiated because one is global and the other is scoped to a group.
All tools follow the consistent pattern 'mailerlite_verb_noun' (e.g., list_subscribers, create_group, get_campaign). The prefix ensures uniqueness, and verbs like list, get, create, upsert, assign are used uniformly.
13 tools is reasonable for a MailerLite integration. It covers the core subscriber and group management well, while being lighter on other areas like campaigns and automations. The count is appropriate without being overwhelming.
The tool set covers subscriber and group management (CRUD for subscribers, create/list/assign groups) but is read-only for campaigns, automations, fields, segments, and webhooks. Missing operations like delete subscriber, delete/update group, and any write on campaigns indicate notable gaps.