Sends a public collection event for a tracked Umami link or pixel, letting you record link clicks or pixel hits with optional URL, name, data, and hostname.
Send a public collection event for a tracked link or pixel
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | No | ||
| data | No | ||
| name | No | ||
| entityId | Yes | ||
| hostname | No | ||
| entityType | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It indicates an event-sending operation, but does not disclose side effects, authentication or public-endpoint requirements, idempotency, rate limits, or what happens with the nested event data.
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 sentence with no waste, but it is too terse for a 6-parameter event-sending tool and omits structure that would help an agent act correctly.
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?
Given moderate complexity, 6 parameters, a nested object, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is not complete enough. It names the entity types but leaves critical invocation details undocumented.
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 0% across 6 parameters, including a nested 'data' object. The description only loosely maps to the 'link'/'pixel' entityType enum and does not explain required entityId, url, name, hostname, or the structure and purpose of 'data'.
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?
The description states a specific action ('send') and resource ('public collection event') and narrows the target to 'a tracked link or pixel'. This distinguishes it somewhat from generic siblings like send_event, though 'public collection event' remains abstract.
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?
It implies usage for link or pixel events but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no comparison to alternatives such as send_event or batch_events. An agent must infer the routing decision from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.