Matomo MCP Server

matomo_call

Execute any Matomo HTTP Reporting API method to retrieve analytics data, with support for parameters and multiple response formats.

Instructions

Esegue qualsiasi metodo dell'HTTP Reporting API di Matomo (es. VisitsSummary.get, SitesManager.getSitesWithViewAccess). Parametri: method, params, format.

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": {
      "method": "<method>"
    },
    "name": "matomo_call"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`format`	No	Formato di risposta (json, xml, csv, tsv, html, rss, original, png)	json
`method`	Yes	Metodo nel formato Module.action (es. VisitsSummary.get)
`params`	No	Parametri della richiesta API

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jul 30, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool executes methods, without mentioning side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or error behavior.

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 concise (two sentences), front-loads the purpose, and lists parameters efficiently without extraneous words.

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 generic API caller with nested parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks guidance on constructing the 'params' object, error handling, and authentication context, leaving the agent underinformed.

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 coverage is 100%, so all parameters are documented in the schema. The description merely lists parameter names without adding new semantics, meeting the baseline but adding no extra value.

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 clearly states the tool executes any Matomo HTTP reporting API method, with specific examples (VisitsSummary.get, SitesManager.getSitesWithViewAccess). It implies a generic nature, distinguishing it from sibling tools that cover specific methods.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like matomo_list_report_metadata or matomo_get_processed_report. There is no mention of prerequisites, alternatives, or exclusions.

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

Deploy Server