umami-mcp

list_websites

Retrieve and filter all websites tracked in Umami, with pagination, search, ordering, and optional team-accessible results.

Instructions

List all websites tracked in Umami

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_websites"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`page`	No	Page number (1-based)
`search`	No	Search query to filter websites
`orderBy`	No	Field to order by (e.g. 'name', 'domain')
`pageSize`	No	Results per page (default 10)
`includeTeams`	No	Include team-accessible websites
`sortDescending`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed4 schema fields changedv2.1.1Oct 24, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / includeTeams

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Include team-accessible websites",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}

removedInput schema / properties / query

Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Search query to filter websites",
-  "type": "string"
-}

addedInput schema / properties / search

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Search query to filter websites",
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / sortDescending
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
```

First observedv1.2.1Mar 19, 2026

TDQS

C2.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It doesn't disclose pagination behavior (pageSize default 10, 1-based page), that results are limited to the caller's accessible websites unless includeTeams is set, what ordering applies by default, or whether it's authenticated/read-only.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficiently phrased, though its brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness.

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 6-parameter list tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should clarify scope (personal vs team vs admin), pagination, and the search/orderBy behavior. It leaves all of that to the schema and omits any scope disambiguation from overlapping siblings.

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 83%, so the schema documents page, search, orderBy, pageSize, and includeTeams well; baseline 3 applies. The description adds nothing about filtering or pagination semantics, and sortDescending remains undocumented in both places except by name.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource (list websites), which is clearer than a bare name. However, 'all websites tracked in Umami' does not distinguish it from close siblings such as get_my_websites, list_team_websites, or list_admin_websites, and the 'all' scope is muddled by the includeTeams parameter.

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?

No when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives, despite three or more sibling list tools that overlap in scope. An agent has to guess whether this returns personal, team, or admin-scoped websites.

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

Deploy Server