Skip to main content
Glama

Nevent MCP

by io.github.nevent-dev

nevent_delete_image

Destructive

Permanently delete one or more images from the Nevent media library. Provide the CDN URLs (src / destinationUrl) from nevent_list_images or nevent_upload_image. The operation is irreversible. Any email template HTML that references the deleted URLs will show broken images. Requires FULL operation mode (NEVENT_OPERATION_MODE=FULL) and ADMIN, SUPERADMIN, or OWNER role.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlsYesArray of CDN image URLs to delete. Use the src/destinationUrl values from nevent_list_images or nevent_upload_image. Minimum 1 URL required. The operation is permanent. Example: ["https://cdn.nevent.es/resources/tenant123/banner.png"].

Schema Changelog

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

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already mark the tool as destructive (destructiveHint=true), and the description adds meaningful context beyond that: the operation is irreversible, and email template HTML referencing deleted URLs will show broken images. It also specifies permission requirements, which helps the agent anticipate errors.

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 compact and well-structured. It opens with the core action and irreversibility, then adds the URL-source guidance, the broken-image consequence, and finally the access requirements. Every sentence adds relevant information without padding.

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 simple single-parameter destructive tool, the description covers the key operational context: how to obtain valid inputs, irreversibility, side effects, and required permissions. There is no output schema, but the description does not need to explain return values in depth for a delete operation; a small gap is the lack of any mention of success or failure response behavior.

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 the URLs array, minimum item count, and example. The description repeats the source guidance (src/destinationUrl) but does not add significant new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 and resource: 'permanently delete one or more images from the Nevent media library.' It clearly distinguishes the operation from sibling tools by specifying the target resource and even tells the agent where to source valid URLs (nevent_list_images or nevent_upload_image).

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 prerequisites for use: URLs must come from nevent_list_images or nevent_upload_image, and FULL operation mode with ADMIN, SUPERADMIN, or OWNER role is required. It does not explicitly compare against alternative tools, but for a deletion operation the context and preconditions are well stated.

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