Skip to main content
Glama

Nevent MCP

by io.github.nevent-dev

nevent_update_segment

Destructive

Modify an existing segment's name and/or filter definition. Call this after nevent_get_segment to inspect the current definition before changing it. At least one of name or definition must be provided. After update, call nevent_segment_preview to confirm the new audience count before scheduling a campaign.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNoNew human-readable name for the segment. Omit to leave unchanged.
definitionNoReplacement segment DSL. The full definition is replaced when provided. Omit to leave the existing definition unchanged.
segment_idYesIdentifier of the segment to update. Use nevent_list_segments to get valid segment IDs.

Schema Changelog

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

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description does not need to repeat that this is a write operation. It adds valuable behavioral guidance beyond the annotations: inspect before changing and preview after updating. No contradiction exists between the description and annotations.

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 three sentences with no wasted words. The core action comes first, followed by the prerequisite workflow and the post-update verification step. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given the complex nested schema, the description supplies the missing workflow context: using get_segment for a safe update, the at-least-one requirement, and the preview follow-up. It does not describe return values, but no output schema exists and the preview instruction compensates for that gap. Overall, an agent has enough context to call this tool correctly.

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%, and the schema already explains segment_id, name, definition, and all nested DSL fields in detail. The description adds general mention of 'name and/or filter definition' but not deeper parameter semantics. Per the baseline for high schema coverage, this is adequate.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Modify an existing segment's name and/or filter definition.' It clearly states the exact scope of the operation and differentiates it from segment creation because it targets an existing segment. The action is unambiguous and aligns with the sibling tool set.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives explicit workflow guidance: call nevent_get_segment first to inspect the current definition, provide at least one of name or definition, and call nevent_segment_preview afterward to verify the audience count. This tells the agent not only what to do but in what order, which is strong usage context.

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