umami-mcp

get_team_user

Retrieves a team member's details using team and user UUIDs, enabling targeted membership lookup in Umami.

Instructions

Get details of a specific team member

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": {
      "teamId": "<teamId>",
      "userId": "<userId>"
    },
    "name": "get_team_user"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`teamId`	Yes	Team UUID
`userId`	Yes	User UUID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv2.1.1Oct 24, 2026
- addedInput schema / properties / teamId / format
```
Added value: +"uuid"
```
- addedInput schema / properties / userId / format
```
Added value: +"uuid"
```
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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read operation but says nothing about required permissions, what happens if the user is not in the team, or what fields are returned, leaving meaningful gaps for a lookup tool.

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 it is arguably too terse to carry much information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple two-parameter read tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient to invoke it correctly. It nonetheless omits sibling differentiation and any behavioral context that annotations would normally supply.

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%, with both teamId and userId documented as UUIDs, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description's 'specific team member' only loosely implies the two-identifier lookup and adds no format or scoping detail beyond the schema.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Get details of a specific team member'), so an agent knows it retrieves a single team-member record. However it does not differentiate itself from the close siblings get_user, list_team_users, or get_team, which could easily be confused with this tool.

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 list_team_users (list all members) or get_user (user-level details). The phrase 'specific team member' implies both IDs are needed, but no prerequisites, alternatives, or exclusions are stated.

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

Deploy Server