Matomo MCP Server

matomo_get_metadata

Retrieve report metadata including schema, measurement units, and documentation from a Matomo instance using API.getMetadata.

Instructions

Recupera metadati per report specifico tramite API.getMetadata. Include schema, unità di misura, documenti.

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": {
      "idSite": "<idSite>",
      "apiModule": "<apiModule>",
      "apiAction": "<apiAction>"
    },
    "name": "matomo_get_metadata"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`date`	No	today
`idSite`	Yes
`period`	No	day
`language`	No
`apiAction`	Yes
`apiModule`	Yes
`hideMetricsDoc`	No
`showSubtableReports`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jul 30, 2026

TDQS

C2.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It lacks information on side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or any constraints. It only states what the tool does, not how it behaves.

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 very short and to the point, with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the action and result. However, it could be slightly expanded without losing conciseness to improve completeness.

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

Completeness1/5

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

Given the complexity (8 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is severely lacking. It does not explain how to use the parameters or what the response looks like, leaving the agent to guess or rely on external knowledge.

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

Parameters2/5

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

With 0% schema description coverage, the description should explain parameters. It does not mention the key parameters apiModule and apiAction, nor does it clarify the role of date, period, or boolean options. The brief mention of 'schema, unità di misura, documenti' hints at output but not input semantics.

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 clearly states it retrieves metadata for a specific report via API.getMetadata, and includes what is returned (schema, unit of measure, documents). It distinguishes from siblings like matomo_list_report_metadata by implying it targets a specific report, though it could be more explicit.

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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of prerequisites, when not to use, or how it compares to matomo_list_report_metadata or matomo_get_processed_report.

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

Deploy Server