Umami MCP vs Convalytics

In-depth architectural comparison of the Umami MCP and Convalytics MCP servers. Compare execution transports, security boundaries, tool capabilities, quality scores, and ready-to-paste client installation snippets for Claude, Cursor, Windsurf, and VS Code.

Which MCP Server Should You Choose?

U

Choose Umami MCP when:

• You need dedicated capabilities in the Developer Tools domain.
• You prefer local stdio subprocess transport architecture.
• Your security boundary fits: No auth required (Free / Open Source).
• Primary tools included: umami_list_websites, umami_get_website, umami_create_website.

Explore Umami MCP Details

Choose Convalytics when:

• You need dedicated capabilities in the Developer Tools domain.
• You prefer local stdio subprocess transport architecture.
• Your security boundary fits: No auth required (Free / Open Source).

Explore Convalytics Details

Feature & Specification Comparison

Specification	U Umami MCP Developer Tools	Convalytics Developer Tools
Summary	Query Umami Analytics v3 — stats, funnels, retention, attribution, UTM. Read-only by default.	Read-only analytics for Convex apps, queryable via MCP from Claude, Cursor, and other clients.
Category & Scope	Developer Tools	Developer Tools
Quality signal

Tools & Capabilities Breakdown

Ready-to-Paste Client Configurations

Paste either (or both) of these JSON server blocks into your client config file (e.g. claude_desktop_config.json or ~/.cursor/mcp.json).

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "umami-mcp": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": [
        "-y",
        "@asif2bd/umami-mcp"
      ]
    }
  }
}

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "convalytics": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": [
        "-y",
        "convalytics"
      ]
    }
  }
}

Related MCP Server Comparisons