Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
umami-mcp

umami-mcp

by mikusnuz
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

create_team

Creates a new team in Umami Analytics from a required team name so you can group websites and manage members.

Instructions

Create a new team

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": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "create_team"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesTeam name

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv2.1.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / name / maxLength
      Added value: +50
  2. First observedv1.2.1

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
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 conveys only that the tool mutates by creating, saying nothing about required permission level (team creation is typically admin-gated), name-uniqueness or duplicate-name behavior, or what side effects occur on the caller's account.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It is efficient, though the brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined editing.

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 an unannotated mutation tool with no output schema, the description omits permission requirements, duplicate-name handling, and whether the created team is returned or its ID discoverable. An agent can attempt the call but cannot predict failure modes or follow-up steps.

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% with a single documented 'name' parameter (maxLength 50), so the schema already explains the input. The description adds nothing beyond it, which is the baseline case for fully covered schemas.

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?

States a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('team'), which cleanly distinguishes it from create_website, create_user, and the other create_* siblings. It is clear but adds no scope detail such as whether the caller is auto-added as a member.

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 versus join_team, list_teams, or get_my_teams, and no stated prerequisites. The agent is left to infer that this is the onboarding path for a brand-new team.

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