Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
umami-mcp

umami-mcp

by mikusnuz
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

run_report

Executes a specified Umami v3 analytics report for a website using given parameters and returns the results.

Instructions

Execute a current Umami v3 report and return its result

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": {
      "type": "<type>",
      "websiteId": "<websiteId>",
      "parameters": "<parameters>"
    },
    "name": "run_report"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
typeYesReport type to run
filtersNoCurrent Umami filter object; use {} for no filters
websiteIdYesWebsite UUID
parametersYesReport-specific parameters (varies by type)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv2.1.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / filters
      Added value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": {},
+  "default": {},
+  "description": "Current Umami filter object; use {} for no filters",
+  "type": "object"
+}
    • changedInput schema / properties / type / enum
      Previous value: -[
-  "funnel",
-  "retention",
-  "utm",
-  "goals",
-  "insights",
-  "revenue",
-  "journey",
-  "attribution"
-]New value: +[
+  "attribution",
+  "breakdown",
+  "funnel",
+  "goal",
+  "heatmap",
+  "journey",
+  "performance",
+  "retention",
+  "revenue",
+  "utm"
+]
    • addedInput schema / properties / websiteId / format
      Added value: +"uuid"
  2. First observedv1.2.1

TDQS

C2.6/5.0
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 of behavioral disclosure. It says the tool returns a result, but does not state whether execution is read-only, what permissions are needed, whether it has side effects, or what the returned result looks like. The single sentence is insufficient for an execution endpoint with no annotation coverage.

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?

The description is a single sentence with no filler and is front-loaded with the action. It is terse to the point of under-specification, but the sentence itself is efficient.

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?

This is a complex tool: ten report types, type-dependent parameters, nested objects, and no output schema. The one-sentence description does not explain how parameters vary by type, what the result contains, or how it relates to saved-report tools. With no annotations, it leaves material gaps for correct invocation.

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%, so the schema already documents all four parameters, and the baseline is 3. The description adds no meaning about the enum values for 'type' or the type-dependent contents of 'parameters' and 'filters,' but it is not required to compensate for a coverage gap.

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?

The description states 'Execute a ... report and return its result,' which gives a verb and resource. However, 'current Umami v3 report' is vague, and it does not distinguish this ad-hoc execution tool from siblings like get_report, get_website_reports, or list_reports. An agent can infer it runs a report but not how it differs from retrieving a saved one.

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 run_report over get_report, get_website_reports, or other analytics siblings. No prerequisites, no mention that the report type drives the required parameters, and no exclusions are provided.

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