Execute a segment definition and retrieve matching contacts with pagination.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Zero-based page index (default 0) | |
| page_size | No | Results per page (max 100, default 20) | |
| definition | Yes | Segment DSL: stanzas are OR-combined, criteria within each stanza are AND-combined |
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=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the retrieval/pagination behavior and is consistent with the annotations, so no contradiction. It does not disclose potential response size, rate limits, or behavior on invalid definitions, but with annotations covering safety, the bar is met.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence: the verb 'Execute' comes first, followed by the resource and the pagination qualifier. There is no filler, repetition of the schema, or extraneous detail — every word earns its place.
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?
The tool is complex (nested DSL, 3 params, no output schema), but the schema documents it thoroughly and annotations cover the safety profile. The description covers the core contract (execute, return matching contacts, paginated). A minor gap is the absence of any hint about the response shape, since no output schema exists to fill that role.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, and the schema documents every parameter exhaustively, including the nested segment DSL (value types, operator rules, modifiers guidance, filters). The tool description adds little beyond flagging pagination, which the schema already covers. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the semantic burden.
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?
The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Execute a segment definition and retrieve matching contacts with pagination.' The title 'Execute segment and get contacts' reinforces the action. This distinguishes it from siblings like create/get/update/list segment, which operate on segment definitions rather than executing them for contacts.
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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The sibling `nevent_segment_preview` appears to overlap heavily in purpose, yet the description offers no selection criteria or exclusions. Usage is only implied by the tool's name, not stated.
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.
