Skip to main content
Glama

Nevent MCP

by io.github.nevent-dev

nevent_create_bulk_user_short_urls

Generate per-user short URL variants for an existing parent short URL. Each user receives their own unique short link that resolves to the same destination as the parent, but identifies the user on click — used for fan-level click attribution in email/SMS campaigns. The parent short URL must already exist (create it first with nevent_create_short_url). Requires: parentShortCode (from nevent_list_short_urls) and userIds (list of user IDs). Returns: parentShortCode, totalRequested, totalCreated, createdLinks (array of ShortUrlDTO with userId, shortCode, shortUrl per user). Use nevent_get_short_url_campaign_metrics afterwards to track aggregate CTR. WRITE operation — requires STANDARD or FULL operation mode. In READ_ONLY mode this tool returns an operation_not_permitted error immediately without making any API call. Note: parentShortCode is sent in both the URL path and request body — they must match (validated server-side).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
userIdsYesList of user IDs (MongoDB ObjectIds or Nevent user identifiers) to create individual tracking links for. Each user gets a unique short code that resolves to the same destination as the parent. Duplicates are skipped.
parentShortCodeYesShort code of the parent (campaign) short URL (6-8 alphanumeric characters) under which user links will be created. Must already exist. Obtain from nevent_list_short_urls where isParent=true.

Schema Changelog

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

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description goes well beyond annotations by explaining that this is a WRITE operation requiring STANDARD or FULL mode, that READ_ONLY mode returns operation_not_permitted without an API call, and that parentShortCode appears in both path and body and must match. These are meaningful behavioral disclosures beyond the readOnlyHint/destructiveHint flags.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: purpose, prerequisite, required params, return shape, follow-up tool, mode restrictions, and validation note. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no 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 write tool with no output schema, the description is unusually complete: it names inputs, sources for those inputs, expected return fields, a required prior step, a recommended next step, execution-mode constraints, and a server-side validation rule. An agent has enough context to invoke it correctly and interpret results.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds practical parameter context: parentShortCode should come from nevent_list_short_urls, userIds generate per-user tracking links, and the path/body matching constraint is a useful gotcha not present in the schema. This raises it slightly above baseline.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Generate per-user short URL variants for an existing parent short URL.' It clearly differentiates this from nevent_create_short_url by emphasizing the parent URL must already exist, and from read-only siblings like nevent_list_short_urls and nevent_get_short_url_metrics.

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?

Usage guidance is explicit and actionable: create the parent first with nevent_create_short_url, obtain parentShortCode from nevent_list_short_urls, and follow up with nevent_get_short_url_campaign_metrics. It also states mode requirements for this write operation and the immediate error behavior in READ_ONLY mode.

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