Skip to main content
Glama

Nevent MCP

by io.github.nevent-dev

nevent_upload_image

Upload an image to the Nevent media library and get a CDN URL. Accepts base64-encoded images as a data URL (data:image/png;base64,...) or as raw base64 with an explicit mimeType. Returns a destinationUrl (CloudFront CDN URL) that can be used directly in inside email template HTML. Maximum decoded size: 5 MB. Upload the image, then reference the returned destinationUrl in nevent_update_template or nevent_create_template HTML content.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sourceYesBase64-encoded image. Two accepted forms: 1. Data URL: "data:image/png;base64,<base64data>" — MIME type parsed from prefix. 2. Raw base64 string — mimeType parameter required. Maximum decoded size: 5 MB. URL sources are not accepted.
mimeTypeNoMIME type of the image, e.g. "image/png" or "image/jpeg". Required when source is raw base64 (no data URL prefix). Ignored when source is a data URL (MIME type parsed from prefix). Common values: image/png | image/jpeg | image/gif | image/webp | image/svg+xml.
imageNameNoOptional file name for the uploaded resource (e.g. "event-banner.png"). When omitted, a name is generated from the upload timestamp.

Schema Changelog

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

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint: false, destructiveHint: false), the description discloses accepted input formats (data URL vs. raw base64), the 5 MB decoded size limit, the return value type (CloudFront CDN URL), and how that URL is intended to be used. This gives the agent a clear behavioral model of the operation.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose and output, followed by input format constraints, size limit, and downstream usage. Every sentence adds useful information; there is no filler or redundancy.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description explains the return value (destinationUrl), its format, and how to use it. It also covers the two accepted input forms, size limit, and the relationship to template editing tools, making the tool fully actionable for an agent.

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 documents source, mimeType, and imageName with their conditions and constraints. The tool description adds limited new parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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: 'Upload an image to the Nevent media library and get a CDN URL.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like nevent_list_images or nevent_delete_image, and the output is concretely identified as a CloudFront destinationUrl.

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 gives a clear workflow: upload the image, then use the returned destinationUrl in nevent_update_template or nevent_create_template HTML. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but it does specify when and why this tool should be used, which is strong contextual guidance.

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