Lists websites tracked in Umami analytics with page-based pagination, starting at page 1 and supporting page sizes up to 100.
List websites tracked in Umami. Paged: page starts at 1, page_size up to 100.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| page_size | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | Yes | ||
| total | No | ||
| websites | Yes | ||
| page_size | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, giving the safety profile. The description adds useful behavioral detail that page is 1-based and page_size caps at 100, which the schema does not state. It doesn't mention total counts or truncation behavior, but the annotations carry the main burden.
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?
Two short sentences that are front-loaded with the purpose and immediately follow with the two parameter constraints. Nothing is wasted.
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 simple two-parameter read tool with an output schema already describing return values, the description covers purpose and the non-obvious paging constraints. The only gap is routing guidance among the many Umami siblings, which is a minor omission given the unambiguous resource.
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%, so the description must compensate, and it partially does: it clarifies 1-based paging and the page_size ceiling of 100. However, it doesn't explain defaults (page 1, page_size 20) or what happens when page exceeds the result set, leaving some semantics unstated.
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?
States a specific verb and resource: 'List websites tracked in Umami.' It's clear what the tool returns, but it doesn't distinguish itself from siblings like umami_stats or umami_pageviews beyond the nouns in their names.
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 offers no when-to-use guidance or alternatives. It doesn't say to call this first to obtain a website ID for other Umami tools, which is the natural usage pattern implied by the sibling set.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.