Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
umami-mcp

umami-mcp

by mikusnuz
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

create_report

Create and save a custom Umami analytics report with a chosen type, parameters, and description for a website.

Instructions

Create and save a new report

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": {
      "websiteId": "<websiteId>",
      "name": "<name>",
      "type": "<type>",
      "parameters": "<parameters>"
    },
    "name": "create_report"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesReport name
typeYesReport type
websiteIdYesWebsite UUID
parametersYesReport-specific parameters (JSON object)
descriptionNoReport description

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed5 schema fields changedv2.1.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / description / maxLength
      Added value: +500
    • addedInput schema / properties / name / maxLength
      Added value: +200
    • changedInput schema / properties / type / enum
      Previous value: -[
-  "funnel",
-  "retention",
-  "utm",
-  "goals",
-  "insights",
-  "revenue",
-  "journey",
-  "attribution"
-]New value: +[
+  "attribution",
+  "breakdown",
+  "funnel",
+  "goal",
+  "heatmap",
+  "journey",
+  "performance",
+  "retention",
+  "revenue",
+  "utm"
+]
    • addedInput schema / properties / websiteId / format
      Added value: +"uuid"
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "websiteId",
-  "name",
-  "type"
-]New value: +[
+  "websiteId",
+  "name",
+  "type",
+  "parameters"
+]
  2. First observedv1.2.1

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 carries the full behavioral burden. It states no side effects, no permission requirements, no indication of what happens when 'parameters' doesn't match the selected report type, and no return information — all significant gaps for a write operation creating a persisted object.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. The problem is under-specification rather than verbosity, which is penalized in the other dimensions.

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?

This is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, and its nested 'parameters' object has polymorphic semantics per report type. None of that is addressed, so an agent has no basis for constructing a valid call beyond the raw schema.

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 description coverage is 100%, so every parameter is already documented in the schema, including the ten-value type enum. The description adds nothing beyond the schema — notably it never explains that the required 'parameters' object is report-type-specific, which is the one place extra prose would have real value.

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

Purpose3/5

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

"Create and save a new report" gives a clear verb and resource, so an agent understands the basic action. But it offers no differentiation from siblings such as update_report, run_report, or create_board, and the 'and save' phrasing adds no scope information.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. that websiteId must reference an existing website), and no mention of update_report as the alternative when a report already exists. The agent must infer all routing from the name alone.

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