list_segmentsList saved audience segments. Raisely API: GET /segments. Returns { data:[...], pagination }.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max records to return (Raisely `limit`, default 20). | |
| offset | No | Records to skip for pagination (Raisely `offset`, default 0). | |
| params | No | Additional documented query-string filters to send verbatim (e.g. campaign, status, sort, order, private) — merged with the typed limit/offset above. |
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 annotation readOnlyHint=true already signals a safe read operation. The description adds the Raisely endpoint and the return shape { data:[...], pagination }, which provides useful behavioral context beyond the annotation. It does not cover rate limits or auth, but with annotations present, this is sufficient.
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 extremely concise, front-loading the purpose and adding only essential details (endpoint and return shape). Every sentence contributes meaning with no waste.
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?
With no output schema, the description explains the return shape ({ data:[...], pagination }) and the endpoint. Combined with full schema parameter coverage and the readOnly annotation, this is complete for a simple 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with all three parameters (limit, offset, params) already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific information, so it meets the baseline of 3.
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 saved audience segments' with a specific verb and resource, and adds the Raisely endpoint and return shape. This distinguishes it from sibling tools, none of which target segments.
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 gives clear context that this tool is for listing saved audience segments. It does not explicitly mention alternative tools or when not to use it, but since no sibling covers segments, the usage context is clear. Lacks explicit exclusions, so not a 5.
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 is clearly scoped to a specific resource and action. The get_/list_/create_/update_ prefixes distinguish reads from mutations, and the convenience listers are explicitly labeled, so there is no real overlap or confusion.
Tool names largely follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (create_, get_, list_, update_). The only outlier is raisely_request, which is a generic escape hatch but breaks the pattern slightly.
With 23 tools, the server is on the heavy side. While each tool maps to a distinct API endpoint, several convenience wrappers (list_campaign_donations, list_user_donations) add redundancy without significantly expanding functionality.
The tool surface is heavily read-oriented. Many core resources like campaigns, subscriptions, posts, and orders lack create/update/delete operations, and the read-only raisely_request cannot fill these gaps, leaving agents unable to perform common management tasks.