mailerlite_list_subscribersList subscribers, optionally filtered by status. Cursor-paginated. MailerLite API: GET /subscribers.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max subscribers to return per page (default 25, max 100). | |
| cursor | No | Pagination cursor from a previous response's meta.next_cursor. | |
| status | No | Filter by status (→ filter[status]): active | unsubscribed | unconfirmed | bounced | junk. |
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. The description adds cursor-paginated behavior and the API endpoint, which are useful but not comprehensive. It does not mention ordering, rate limits, or default pagination behavior (though the schema covers default limit). Some behavioral context is added beyond annotations.
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: first states purpose and filter, second adds pagination and API reference. No redundant information; every sentence adds value. Highly efficient.
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 listing tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the core action, optional filter, and pagination method. It lacks explanation of the return format (e.g., subscriber object fields), but this is often inferred from API conventions. Still, it is nearly complete for the tool's intended use.
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 coverage is 100% with detailed parameter descriptions. The main description only mentions 'optionally filtered by status', which is already evident from the status parameter. No additional meaning or context is provided for parameters beyond what the schema offers. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 the tool lists subscribers with optional status filtering, specifying verb ('List'), resource ('subscribers'), and key behavior. It is specific and unambiguous, distinguishing it from siblings like mailerlite_get_subscriber (single) and mailerlite_list_group_subscribers (group-scoped).
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 versus alternatives. With siblings like mailerlite_list_group_subscribers or mailerlite_list_segments, the description should indicate that this lists all subscribers (or filtered) as opposed to group-specific or segment-specific lists. No such context is provided.
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.