Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Nevent MCP

by io.github.nevent-dev
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

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. If the template changed since you read it (another editor, the image processor or an AI edit), nev-api answers 409 template_edit_conflict and nothing is written: re-read it with nevent_get_template, re-apply your change on the current content and call this tool again (it never retries by itself).

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": {
      "template_id": "<template_id>"
    },
    "name": "nevent_update_template"
  }
}

Input 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.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the destructiveHint=true annotation by disclosing the non-obvious side-effect boundary: updating does NOT retroactively change already-sent campaigns. It also documents optimistic concurrency (409 template_edit_conflict), that nothing is written on conflict, that the server never auto-retries, and that concurrent actors include the image processor and AI edits.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action before prerequisites and the conflict scenario, and there is no filler. The 409 paragraph is dense but every clause (re-read, re-apply, no auto-retry) changes agent behavior, so it earns its length.

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 destructive mutation with no output schema, this covers the critical unknowns: preconditions, concurrency failure mode, and blast radius on sent campaigns. The residual gap is the undocumented `format` parameter and its interaction with html_body/mjml_body, plus no statement of what a successful call returns.

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 per-parameter meaning (including the tags full-replacement semantics and omit-to-leave-unchanged) is already documented, setting the baseline at 3. The description adds one genuine constraint not in the schema — at least one mutable field is required — but it never mentions the `format` parameter at all.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Update an existing email template") and enumerates the mutable fields (name, MJML/HTML content, tags), so the operation is unambiguous. It implicitly separates itself from read-side siblings (nevent_get_template, nevent_list_templates) but never addresses nevent_rename_template, which overlaps on the name-change path.

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?

Gives an explicit read-before-write workflow ("Call nevent_get_template first"), a hard precondition ("At least one of name, content, or tags must be provided"), and a precise recovery procedure for the 409 conflict. The only missing routing is when to prefer nevent_rename_template over this tool for a pure rename.

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