Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
umami-mcp

umami-mcp

by mikusnuz
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

get_user

Fetches details of a specific Umami user by UUID; requires admin access.

Instructions

Get details of a specific user (admin only)

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": {
      "userId": "<userId>"
    },
    "name": "get_user"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
userIdYesUser UUID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv2.1.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / userId / format
      Added value: +"uuid"
  2. First observedv1.2.1

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it does surface one important behavioral fact: this requires admin privileges. It says nothing about what 'details' are returned, whether it fails for nonexistent users, or what a non-admin caller sees.

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 short sentence with no waste, and the access constraint is attached inline. It is efficient, though 'details' is slightly vague for the resource being fetched.

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 read tool with a fully documented parameter this is close to adequate: purpose and auth requirement are covered. With no output schema, however, the agent has no idea what fields the user record contains, and the description does not fill that gap.

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?

The single userId parameter is fully documented in the schema (100% coverage, UUID format stated), so the schema does the work. The description adds nothing about the identifier beyond what the schema already says, which is the expected baseline for a one-param tool.

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 ('Get details of a specific user') and the singular 'a specific user' implies lookup by identifier, distinguishing it from the sibling list_users. It does not explicitly disambiguate from get_me or get_user_websites/get_user_teams, which are the nearest confusable siblings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The '(admin only)' parenthetical gives a real prerequisite for calling it, which is useful context. There is no explicit guidance on when to prefer get_me, list_users, or get_user_websites instead, so the agent must infer routing from the name.

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