Skip to main content
Glama

Nevent MCP

by io.github.nevent-dev

nevent_schedule_campaign

Destructive

Schedule an existing DRAFT campaign for delivery at a specific ISO-8601 datetime. IMPORTANT: this is a DESTRUCTIVE action — the campaign will be queued for sending to real contacts. You MUST set confirmed=true in the call, which requires explicit user consent. Call nevent_get_campaign first to verify the draft content and recipient segment. scheduled_time must be in the future (ISO-8601, e.g. 2025-06-01T10:00:00Z). The campaign transitions from DRAFT to SCHEDULED status on success.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
confirmedYesMust be the literal value true to proceed. Set confirmed=true to confirm you want to schedule this campaign for sending.
campaign_idYesCampaign ID to schedule (must be in DRAFT status)
scheduled_timeYesISO 8601 datetime for scheduled send (must be in the future). Example: "2026-05-01T10:00:00Z" or "2026-05-01T10:00:00+02:00"

Schema Changelog

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

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Even though destructiveHint is already true, the description adds critical detail: the campaign will be queued for sending to real contacts, confirmed=true requires explicit user consent, and the status changes from DRAFT to SCHEDULED. This goes well beyond the annotations.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the purpose and the destructive warning, and each sentence adds useful context. It is somewhat longer than necessary because some constraints duplicate the schema, but it remains well-structured and readable.

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 mutation tool with strong annotations and full schema coverage, the description is complete: it covers preconditions, required confirmation, side effects, and the resulting status. Nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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 baseline is 3. The description reinforces constraints like future scheduled_time and DRAFT status, but mostly repeats what the schema already documents rather than adding new parameter-level meaning.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Schedule an existing DRAFT campaign for delivery at a specific ISO-8601 datetime.' It also clarifies the state transition from DRAFT to SCHEDULED, distinguishing it from create/send tools.

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?

It gives clear usage context: only schedule existing DRAFT campaigns, use confirmed=true with explicit user consent, and call nevent_get_campaign first to verify content and recipient segment. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.

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