umami-mcp

get_event_data_stats

Retrieves summary counts of event data for a website within a date range, optionally filtered by event name and additional Umami filters.

Instructions

Get event data statistics (summary counts) for a website

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>",
      "startAt": "<startAt>",
      "endAt": "<endAt>"
    },
    "name": "get_event_data_stats"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`endAt`	Yes	End timestamp in milliseconds
`event`	No	Filter by event name
`filters`	No	Additional current Umami filter fields
`startAt`	Yes	Start timestamp in milliseconds
`websiteId`	Yes	Website UUID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedv2.1.1Oct 24, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / event

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Filter by event name",
+  "type": "string"
+}

removedInput schema / properties / eventName

Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Filter by event name",
-  "type": "string"
-}

addedInput schema / properties / filters

Added value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": {
+    "type": [
+      "string",
+      "number",
+      "boolean"
+    ]
+  },
+  "description": "Additional current Umami filter fields",
+  "type": "object"
+}

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and largely fails: beyond 'Get' implying a read, it says nothing about permissions needed, whether the filters object constrains results, how large the date window can be, or what the summary response looks like. The only behavioral hint is 'summary counts', which at least tells the agent not to expect raw event rows.

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. It is arguably too terse rather than padded, but nothing in it wastes space.

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 5-parameter aggregation tool with a nested filters object, no annotations, and no output schema, one sentence is insufficient — the agent cannot tell what 'summary counts' contains (unique events? total events? per-event breakdown?) or how filters scope the result.

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% — websiteId, startAt, endAt, event, and filters are all documented in the schema, so the description needn't repeat them. It adds nothing beyond the schema (e.g., how 'filters' interacts with 'event' is unspecified), so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Get') and resource ('event data statistics') and adds the parenthetical 'summary counts', which distinguishes it from sibling read tools like get_event_data_events or get_event_data_values that return rows rather than aggregates. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so an agent must infer the split.

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 choose this over get_stats, get_events, or the other get_event_data_* tools, and no mention of prerequisites, rate limits, or exclusions. The agent is left to guess 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