Matomo MCP Server

matomo_get_goals

Retrieve goals list for a Matomo site to track and analyze conversion metrics using site ID.

Instructions

Lấy danh sách goals của một site

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": {
      "siteId": "<siteId>"
    },
    "name": "matomo_get_goals"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`siteId`	Yes	ID của site

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedAug 15, 2025

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it retrieves a list, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't cover aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what the returned list contains. This leaves significant gaps for a tool 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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it could be slightly more informative to improve completeness.

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?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the returned goals list includes (e.g., structure, fields) or any behavioral traits like permissions or limitations. For a tool with no structured data support, this description falls short of providing sufficient context.

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?

The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, which has 100% coverage and clearly documents the 'siteId' parameter. This meets the baseline score of 3, as the schema adequately handles parameter semantics without needing extra description.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states the action ('Lấy danh sách' meaning 'Get list') and resource ('goals của một site' meaning 'goals of a site'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'matomo_get_sites' or 'matomo_get_system_info' which also retrieve data, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'matomo_get_sites' or explain that this is for goals specifically, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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

Deploy Server