Skip to main content
Glama

Nevent MCP

by io.github.nevent-dev

nevent_get_campaign

Read-only

Retrieve the complete record of a campaign: email subject and body HTML, sending profile, all delivery and engagement metrics (sent, delivered, opens, clicks, unsubscribes, bounces), and tracked links with click counts. Call this after nevent_list_campaigns to drill into a specific campaign. Next step: nevent_get_campaign_insights for AI-generated recommendations, or nevent_campaign_report for a full analytics query.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
campaign_idYesThe campaign Identifier. Use nevent_list_campaigns to discover valid campaign IDs.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by specifying exactly what data the retrieval returns (email subject, body HTML, sending profile, delivery/engagement metrics, tracked links with click counts), and clarifies the intended call sequence relative to other tools. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is efficiently structured: the first clause states the core action and scope, the middle enumerates return contents, and the final sentence frames the workflow. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With only one parameter and a read-only annotation, the description is complete enough: it enumerates the return content in detail, signals the safe read nature, and places the tool in a clear workflow sequence. Since there is no output schema, the explicit list of returned data compensates well.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents campaign_id and tells agents to use nevent_list_campaigns to discover valid IDs. The tool description reinforces this same guidance but does not add any new parameter-level semantics, such as format, constraints, or examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('Retrieve') with a clear resource ('complete record of a campaign') and enumerates the contained fields: subject, body HTML, sending profile, metrics, and tracked links. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by positioning it as the drill-down after nevent_list_campaigns and differentiates next-step tools like nevent_get_campaign_insights and nevent_campaign_report.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives explicit workflow guidance: 'Call this after nevent_list_campaigns to drill into a specific campaign.' It also names the next steps (nevent_get_campaign_insights for AI recommendations, nevent_campaign_report for full analytics query), effectively telling an agent when to use this tool versus the alternatives.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Nevent MCP toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Most domain groups are distinct, but the campaign reporting cluster has three tools returning overlapping engagement metrics (get_campaign, get_campaign_metrics, campaign_report), and paid_ads_status vs paid_ads_health have fuzzy boundaries. The detailed descriptions mitigate but do not eliminate the risk of an agent calling the wrong tool.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names use the nevent_ prefix and snake_case, and most CRUD operations follow verb_noun. However, several tools reverse the order or drop the verb entirely (segment_preview, segment_execute, campaign_report, paid_ads_status, analytics_query), making the convention mixed but still readable.

Tool Count1/5

With 59 tools, this is far above the 25+ 'too many' threshold and falls into the 50+ extreme range. The broad domain coverage explains some of the size, but for an agent the set is likely to be overwhelming and harder to navigate than a more focused server.

Completeness3/5

The core marketing workflow (segments, templates, campaign creation, quote, schedule, metrics) is covered, but there is no way to update, cancel, or delete a campaign, and templates and segments lack delete operations. These are notable lifecycle gaps that agents will hit when users want to change or clean up resources.

Resources