umami-mcp

create_website

Create a new website in Umami Analytics by providing its domain and display name, optionally assigning a team or share ID for tracking and public access.

Instructions

Create a new website to track in Umami

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": {
      "domain": "<domain>",
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "create_website"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes	Display name for the website
`domain`	Yes	Website domain (e.g. 'example.com')
`teamId`	No	Create the website under this team
`shareId`	No	Unique share ID for public access

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv2.1.1Oct 24, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / teamId

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Create the website under this team",
+  "format": "uuid",
+  "type": "string"
+}

First observedv1.2.1Mar 19, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and delivers almost none of it: nothing about required permissions, what happens on duplicate domains, whether teamId defaults to a personal account, or whether creation is reversible. Only the word 'Create' signals mutation.

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. 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 a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits auth requirements, duplicate handling, team scoping semantics, and what a successful response contains. The agent can call it from the schema alone but cannot predict its behavior.

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 every field including name, domain, teamId and shareId is already documented, and the description adds nothing beyond that. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 and resource ('Create a new website') and adds the tracking context ('to track in Umami'). It does not distinguish itself from closely related siblings such as create_website_share or transfer_website, but the core action is unambiguous.

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 alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of the team-scoped variant implied by the teamId parameter. The agent must infer everything from the sibling list and schema.

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

Deploy Server