Skip to main content
Glama
arttus

umami-mcp-server

by arttus
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Create a team

umami_create_team

Create a team to group websites and members under shared access, and generate an access code for others to join.

Instructions

Create a team in Umami. Teams group websites and members under shared access, separate from personal accounts. Useful for keeping one client's or one product line's websites together with a dedicated access code.

Args:

  • name (string, required): Team name.

Returns: { "id": string, "name": string, "access_code": string }

The access_code can be shared with someone else so they can self-join via umami_join_team, instead of you adding them one by one.

Examples:

  • "Create a team to hold all the Gradeline sites" -> name="Gradeline"

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesTeam name.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already provide mutation/idempotency/destruction hints; the description adds meaningful context: teams are separate from personal accounts and the returned access_code enables self-joining. This goes beyond the structured hints without contradicting them.

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?

Well-organized with Args, Returns, and Example sections; every sentence adds useful information and the access_code behavior is explained without padding.

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?

For a single-required-parameter tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what to pass, what comes back, and how the result is used. Nothing necessary for correct invocation is missing.

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% and the schema fully documents name as a required string. The description repeats the parameter and adds an example, but no significant semantic detail beyond the schema.

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?

Uses a specific verb (create) and resource (team) and explains what a team is: a shared-access grouping of websites/members separate from personal accounts. This clearly distinguishes it from team update/join/delete operations.

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 use case: keeping a client's or product line's websites together with a dedicated access code. It also names the join path (umami_join_team) as the alternative for sharing access, though it doesn't enumerate exclusions like update/delete scenarios.

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