Skip to main content
Glama

Nevent MCP

by io.github.nevent-dev

nevent_update_template

Destructive

Update an existing email template: change the name, MJML/HTML content, or tags. Call nevent_get_template first to inspect the current version before modifying. At least one of name, content, or tags must be provided. Note: updating a template does NOT retroactively change campaigns already sent with it.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNoNew human-readable name for the template. Omit to leave unchanged.
tagsNoReplacement list of tags. The full tag list is replaced when provided. Omit to leave existing tags unchanged.
formatNoNew template format: "html" or "mjml". Omit to leave unchanged.
html_bodyNoNew raw HTML content for the template. Omit to leave unchanged.
mjml_bodyNoNew MJML source code for the template. Omit to leave unchanged.
template_idYesIdentifier of the template to update. Use nevent_list_templates to get valid template IDs.

Schema Changelog

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

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, and the description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: updating a template does NOT retroactively change already-sent campaigns. This is a meaningful side-effect disclosure and does not contradict the annotations.

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?

Three concise sentences with zero filler: the main action comes first, followed by a prerequisite, a minimum-requirement constraint, and an important caveat. Each sentence carries useful information.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a mutation tool with no output schema, the description provides the essential invocation context: the target template, the precondition to inspect first, the minimum update requirement, and the key side-effect limitation. It lacks return-value detail, but all parameter semantics are already fully covered by the schema.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all six parameters; the description adds an 'at least one of name, content, or tags' constraint. However, this constraint is not enforced in the schema and its wording omits the format parameter, which is a minor semantic gap.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states a specific verb and resource: 'Update an existing email template,' and enumerates the mutable dimensions (name, MJML/HTML content, tags). It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling nevent_rename_template for name-only updates, so it falls short of a 5.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description gives clear usage context by instructing the agent to call nevent_get_template first to inspect the current version, and states that at least one of name, content, or tags must be provided. It does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool versus alternatives like nevent_create_template or nevent_rename_template.

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