Skip to main content
Glama

OpenPanel: Track event

openpanel_track_event
Destructive

Track custom analytics events with properties for a site, optionally linking profile, timestamp, client IP, and user agent to capture detailed usage data.

Instructions

[UNIFIED] Track a custom event with properties. Events can have any custom properties for analytics.

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": {
      "site": "<site>",
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "openpanel_track_event"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYes
siteYes
client_ipNo
timestampNo
profile_idNo
propertiesNo
user_agentNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv3.14.0
  2. Removedv3.13.1
  3. First observedv3.4.0

TDQS

C2.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare this as a non-read-only, non-idempotent, destructive operation, so the description does not need to repeat those flags. However, it adds almost no behavioral context: it does not explain what the destructive annotation means for event ingestion, whether events are immutable, or what authentication/rate-limit behavior applies.

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 two short sentences with the purpose front-loaded and no wasted wording. It is structurally clean, though the brevity reflects under-specification rather than deliberate compression.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 7-parameter, destructive event-ingestion tool with no schema descriptions and no output schema, the definition is far too thin. It omits required-parameter semantics, properties format, and any warning or context about the write side effect.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% and there are 7 parameters, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It mentions "properties" only generically and does not explain required fields like site and name, the format for properties, or the roles of client_ip, timestamp, profile_id, and user_agent.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource: "Track a custom event with properties." It is clearly a generic event-tracking tool, but it does not explicitly differentiate it from siblings like openpanel_track_page_view or openpanel_track_revenue.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no guidance on when to use this generic event tool versus the specialized tracking siblings. The only implied usage is that it is for custom events, with no exclusions or prerequisites.

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