Skip to main content
Glama

Nevent MCP

by io.github.nevent-dev

nevent_clone_template

Clone an existing email template to create a duplicate as a starting point for a new campaign. Use after nevent_list_templates to pick a template to duplicate. Returns the new cloned template (id, name with "(Copy)" suffix, format, tags). Typically follow with nevent_rename_template and nevent_update_template to customize the clone.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
template_idYesThe ID of the email template to clone. Use nevent_list_templates to discover valid template IDs. The clone will have a new unique ID and its name will be suffixed with "(Copy)".

Schema Changelog

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

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already signal readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, correctly indicating a non-destructive write. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond those annotations by disclosing the return shape ('Returns the new cloned template (id, name with '(Copy)' suffix, format, tags)') and the naming side effect. This is valuable context for a tool with no output schema, and it contradicts no annotation.

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?

Four short sentences, each earning its place: purpose, prior workflow step, return value, and follow-up workflow. The core purpose is front-loaded and there is zero 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?

For a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, this is complete: the purpose, prerequisite step, return shape, and follow-up steps are all disclosed. An agent knows what to supply (template_id), what it gets back, and what to do next, with annotations covering the write/non-destructive safety profile.

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%; the schema already fully documents template_id, including how to discover valid IDs via nevent_list_templates and the resulting new ID and '(Copy)' suffix. The description reinforces this but adds no parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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-resource pair ('Clone an existing email template') and states the intent ('create a duplicate as a starting point for a new campaign'). It distinguishes itself from the closest sibling nevent_create_template by framing this as duplication of an existing resource rather than creation from scratch.

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 explicit sequencing context: 'Use after nevent_list_templates to pick a template to duplicate' and 'typically follow with nevent_rename_template and nevent_update_template to customize the clone.' This clearly situates the tool in a workflow, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name a direct alternative such as create_template for blank templates.

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