Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Unilytics MCP Server

Unilytics MCP Server

Official
by TeamUnilytics
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

create_project

Create a new Unilytics project for an authenticated user by providing a name and optional domain, keywords, competitors, and industry; returns the project ID used by other project tools.

Instructions

Create a new Unilytics project for the authenticated user.

Use when the user asks to set up a new client or project. Returns the new project_id, which the
other project tools take.

Args:
    name: The project / brand / business name (required).
    domain: The project's website URL (optional, e.g. "example.com").
    keywords: Keywords to track — a list, or a comma-separated string.
    competitors: Competitor domains — a list, or a comma-separated string.
    industry: The project's industry (optional).

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "create_project"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYes
domainNo
industryNo
keywordsNo
competitorsNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.1.0
    • removedInput schema / properties / config
      Removed value: -{
-  "default": null,
-  "title": "config",
-  "type": "string"
-}
  2. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-structured context: the creation is scoped to the authenticated user and it emits a project_id that later project tools depend on, which helps the agent chain calls. It does not cover duplicate-name collisions or error responses, keeping it below 5.

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?

Three front-loaded blocks — purpose, when-to-use plus return value, then a compact Args list. No filler sentences; each parameter line adds format or requiredness information rather than restating the property title.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly supplies the return value and its downstream consumer. Annotations cover the mutation safety profile, so the remaining gaps are minor: unknown behavior on duplicate project names and whether keywords/competitors are commonly supplied at creation time.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries full burden and does so: it marks name as required, domain and industry as optional, and gives an example domain format. Critically, it disambiguates the anyOf shape for keywords and competitors ('a list, or a comma-separated string'), which the schema alone cannot convey.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create a new Unilytics project') plus scope ('for the authenticated user'), and adds that it returns the new project_id. The resource distinguishes it cleanly from the create_folder / create_skill siblings without ambiguity.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('Use when the user asks to set up a new client or project') and points forward to the downstream tools that consume the returned project_id. It stops short of naming when-not-to-use or a competing path, but for a creation entry point there is no obvious sibling alternative to exclude.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools