Retrieve website annotations from Umami to track notes and markdown entries by page, date range, or search term.
List website annotations (Umami 3.4+)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| endAt | No | End timestamp in milliseconds; requires startAt | |
| search | No | ||
| startAt | No | Start timestamp in milliseconds; requires endAt | |
| pageSize | No | ||
| websiteId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only list via "List" and notes the Umami 3.4+ requirement, but says nothing about pagination, ordering, required website scoping, or response behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single front-loaded phrase with no waste. It is terse to the point of under-specification, but as a conciseness measure it is efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a six-parameter list tool with no output schema and no annotations, a one-line description is insufficient. It omits required-parameter context, pagination behavior, filtering semantics, and what the listing returns.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 33%, so most parameters are undocumented in structured fields. The description adds no meaning for websiteId, page, pageSize, or search, leaving the agent without guidance on how those parameters shape the listing.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
"List website annotations" gives a specific verb and resource, so an agent can distinguish it from get_annotation, create_annotation, etc. It does not explicitly state scope beyond the resource name, but the purpose is clear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not mention the singular get_annotation alternative or explain the relationship to create/update/delete annotation tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.