Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Nevent MCP

by io.github.nevent-dev
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

nevent_get_campaign_deliverability

Read-only

Email deliverability of ONE campaign (nev-api, the "Entregabilidad" tab of the campaign). view=summary (default): sent, delivered, soft bounces, hard bounces and complaints, plus a warning when something is off. view=bounce_reasons: why messages bounced, grouped by SES bounce subtype; needs bounce_type=soft|hard (call it once per family). view=segment_breakdown: delivery, soft and hard bounces per segment; empty when the campaign targeted a single segment or has no segment attribution. Use it after a send when nevent_get_campaign_metrics shows a high bounce rate, to learn whether the cause is invalid addresses (hard) or mailbox/transient problems (soft). Email campaigns only. For tenant-wide sender health use nevent_get_sending_profile and nevent_get_suppressions_summary instead; for the people behind the bounces use nevent_list_campaign_recipients(status=BOUNCES). Requires ADMIN, OWNER or SUPERADMIN.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "campaign_id": "<campaign_id>"
    },
    "name": "nevent_get_campaign_deliverability"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
viewNosummary (default): sent, delivered, soft/hard bounces, complaints and an optional warning. bounce_reasons: bounce reasons grouped by SES bounce subtype; needs bounce_type. segment_breakdown: delivery / soft / hard bounce per segment (empty when the campaign has a single segment or no attribution).
bounce_typeNoRequired when view=bounce_reasons: the bounce family, soft or hard.
campaign_idYesCampaign ID. Get it from nevent_list_campaigns.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations cover read-only and non-destructive; the description adds critical operational context: ADMIN/OWNER/SUPERADMIN authorization, empty results for segment_breakdown in single-segment cases, and a warning when something is off. It also notes that bounce_type is needed per family.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is front-loaded and organized around the three views, then usage, then alternatives. It is dense but every sentence contributes; a slight trim could improve it, but it is not bloated.

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?

For a read-only tool with three modes, no output schema, and full schema coverage, the description covers purpose, usage, alternatives, auth requirements, and edge cases. Nothing critical is missing.

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 all three parameters and their enums. The description mirrors the view descriptions and adds a small usage note ('call it once per family'), but does not add much beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb (get) and resource (email deliverability of ONE campaign), and explicitly scopes it against tenant-wide sender health. The 'Entregabilidad' tab detail and the three view modes make the purpose unambiguous.

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?

It says to use it after a send when nevent_get_campaign_metrics shows a high bounce rate, and names alternatives (nevent_get_sending_profile, nevent_get_suppressions_summary, nevent_list_campaign_recipients) with the conditions that select them. It also restricts to email campaigns only.

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
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources