Skip to main content
Glama

Nevent MCP

by io.github.nevent-dev

nevent_send_test_template

Destructive

Send a test email of the template to one or more email addresses via SES. Use after nevent_preview_template validates rendering. Test emails carry test indicators in headers and are sent via AWS SES. This call may take up to 60 seconds due to SES delivery. Returns success status, list of recipients the email was sent to, and any error details.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
emailsYesList of email addresses to send the test email to. Each entry must be a valid email address. Minimum 1, maximum 10 recipients. Example: ["qa@example.com", "dev@company.com"].
subjectNoOptional subject line for the test email. Omit to use the default subject from the template.
parametersNoOptional custom parameters for merge-tag substitution in the test email. Key-value pairs where keys match merge tag names. Example: {name: "Juan", city: "Madrid"}. When provided, overrides sample user profile data for the corresponding tags.
template_idYesThe ID of the email template to send as a test. Use nevent_list_templates to discover valid template IDs.
sample_user_idNoOptional user ID for merge-tag personalization in the test email. When provided, {{name}}, {{email}} and custom fields are resolved from this user's profile. Takes priority over sample_user_email.
sample_user_emailNoOptional user email within the active tenant for merge-tag personalization. Ignored when sample_user_id is also provided.

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?

It discloses meaningful behavioral details beyond the annotations: test emails carry test indicators in headers, delivery can take up to 60 seconds, and the call returns success status, recipient list, and error details. This complements the destructiveHint and readOnlyHint annotations without contradicting them.

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 and mostly efficient, with purpose, usage, behavior, and return value in a short paragraph. It loses a point for redundancy: SES is mentioned three times, slightly diluting the conciseness.

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?

Given the rich input schema and no output schema, the description provides the essential missing context: when to invoke, side-effect expectations, latency, and return value summary. An agent can safely select and invoke this tool with the information provided.

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 applies because the input schema already explains all six parameters. The tool description itself does not add parameter-level meaning beyond pointing out that test emails go to recipient addresses.

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 concrete verb and resource: it sends a test email of the template to one or more addresses via SES. It also anchors the tool in a workflow after nevent_preview_template, which helps an agent distinguish it from preview, scheduling, and campaign 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?

The description clearly states when to use it: after nevent_preview_template validates rendering. However, it does not state when not to use it or name an alternative for production sends, so it stops short of fully explicit routing.

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