List all Nevent tenants (clients) accessible to the authenticated user. Returns tenant IDs and names for use with nevent_switch_tenant. SUPERADMIN: returns all tenants in the platform. OWNER/ADMIN: returns only your tenant hierarchy subtree (up to 3 levels).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, and the description adds meaningful role-based behavior: SUPERADMIN sees all tenants while OWNER/ADMIN sees a limited hierarchy subtree. It also discloses the return fields (tenant IDs and names), which is useful beyond the structured annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three concise sentences deliver purpose, output, and role-based behavior with no redundancy. The most important information is front-loaded, and each sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a no-parameter read-only list tool, this description is complete: it states what is returned, who sees what, and how the result is meant to be used. The absence of pagination or response-format details is not a material gap given the simplicity and available annotations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is complete, so the description has no parameter burden. The baseline of 4 applies, and the description appropriately focuses on behavior and output rather than nonexistent inputs.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('all Nevent tenants accessible to the authenticated user'), and clarifies that tenants are clients. It clearly differentiates from sibling tools by tying the output to nevent_switch_tenant and specifying role-dependent scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly states the intended use case: obtaining tenant IDs and names for use with nevent_switch_tenant. It provides clear context about when to call the tool, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or identify alternative listing tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
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.
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.
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.
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.
