Woopra

# Fix list: Woopra

From Anchor Terminal's listing at https://www.anchorterminal.com/tools/woopra, the October 2026 research run, assessed 9 October 2026. Grade E, 44.4 out of 100.

This is everything the published grade says the listing lacks, the biggest possible gain to the total first. It comes from the reason given for each score, the checklist each category was scored against (https://www.anchorterminal.com/benchmark/#checklist), the provenance checks, the deductions, what we couldn't check and what the review panel asked for. A fix counts at the next check, once it's public.

For a coding agent working on Woopra: work through the items below in the product, its docs and its public pages. Each category gives the reason for its score, with the points each checklist item earned, and the checklist itself, so the gap is the items that earned less than their points. Change the product, not the wording, and keep a note of what you changed and where it's published.

## 1. Security & auth, 22 out of 100, up to 13.7 more on the total

Why it scored 22: REST calls use per-user access keys sent by HTTP Basic, with no scopes or rotation guidance found. Tracking calls need only the project name by default, with an optional Secure Tracking secret. Docs examples still show `http://` tracking URLs (15 of 30). The pricing page states group and individual permission controls, but no read-only key or confirmation on `/profile/delete` was found (5). The API returns event and profile text that any caller who knows the project name can write, and no guidance on untrusted content was found (0). No audit log found in the docs (0). No security page, bug bounty or certification was found on the pages read, and security.txt timed out. The privacy policy states Data Privacy Framework certification (2). Total 22.

The checklist (https://www.anchorterminal.com/benchmark/#checklist-security):

- 0 to 30, the credential model. 30 for OAuth 2.1 with scopes, or scoped and revocable keys with rotation. 20 for plain revocable API keys. 10 for one all-powerful key. 10 off when a secret can travel in a URL query string as a documented option.
- 0 to 20, read-only or least-privilege modes, and confirmation or approval for destructive actions.
- 0 to 15, prompt-injection posture where the tool returns untrusted content (documented mitigations or guidance). A tool that returns no untrusted content gets 10.
- 0 to 15, audit logs or per-call visibility for the operator.
- 0 to 20, a security programme. security.txt or a disclosure policy, a bug bounty, SOC 2 or ISO 27001, advisories handled in public.

Models are read for retention, whether API data trains models (and whether that's off by default), zero-retention options and certifications. Frameworks for telemetry defaults, approval hooks, guardrails and sandboxing.

## 2. Schema & documentation, 45 out of 100, up to 8.9 more on the total

Why it scored 45: Each REST reference page embeds an OpenAPI 3.1 fragment in its Markdown copy. No single spec file was found, most operations define no responses, and the tracking endpoints are documented as tables (12). llms.txt and a .md copy of each page, though llms.txt lists four of fourteen REST operations (10). Descriptions are one line. The `/profiles` page repeats the `/trends` text, three profile operations have none, and one page still holds template placeholder text (6). Query parameters carry types and required flags. There are no enums, and profile edits take a JSON string in `data` (6). One curl example for REST and several tracking examples. Tracking response codes are explained, while REST errors are a 400 with an empty object (6). The version sits in the path and 3.10 is the only one supported. No changelog found (5). Total 45.

The checklist (https://www.anchorterminal.com/benchmark/#checklist-schema):

APIs and MCP servers.

- 25, a machine-readable contract (a public OpenAPI file or similar; for MCP, typed JSON Schema inputs on every tool).
- 10, llms.txt or Markdown docs served for agents.
- 0 to 20, descriptions that say what a tool is for, when to use it and when not to, read from the tool definitions in the source or the API reference.
- 0 to 15, typed inputs with enums, constraints and required fields, and no free-form JSON blobs.
- 0 to 15, examples and documented error responses.
- 15, versioning and a public changelog.

Models are read from the API reference, the OpenAPI file, llms.txt, the structured-output and tool-use docs and the model cards. Frameworks from docs a model can follow, typed interfaces, examples and the API reference.

## 3. Agent ergonomics, 45 out of 100, up to 8.9 more on the total

Why it scored 45: Report responses can be capped with `limit`, but a report can only be run from a `report_id` saved in the web app, so an agent can't shape a query through the API (12). `limit`, `offset`, a `snapshot` ID for consistent paging and timeframe overrides on reports, and position headers on log export (14). Tracking codes 401, 402 and 403 each name a cause. REST error bodies are not documented (8). No idempotency key or dedupe field was found, and tracking is by GET. Imports return a batch ID to poll (3). Report calls need two parameters. Official SDKs exist in several languages, but the server ones date from 2017 (8). Total 45.

The checklist (https://www.anchorterminal.com/benchmark/#checklist-ergonomics):

- 0 to 25, context cost. For MCP, the number and size of the tool definitions (25 for ten or fewer compact tools, 15 for 11 to 30, 5 for more than 30, plus up to 10 back for toolsets, dynamic loading or read-only subsets). For APIs, whether responses can be sized (field selection, limits, summaries).
- 20, pagination, filtering and output-size controls.
- 20, actionable, documented error responses, codes and messages an agent can recover from.
- 20, idempotency or safe retries, and for MCP the `readOnlyHint` and `destructiveHint` annotations.
- 15, sensible defaults, few required parameters, and official SDKs in at least two languages.

Models are read for tool use, structured output, prompt caching, context length, batch and SDKs. Frameworks for how much code and how many defaults a tool-calling agent with MCP needs.

## 4. Payments & pricing, 30 out of 100, up to 8.8 more on the total

Why it scored 30: No x402, MPP or L402 (0). Pro is public at a starting price of $999 a month for 5 million events. Overage rates and Enterprise prices are not published (10). 30-day trial of Pro. The terms say a customer may add a card during the trial, which suggests none is needed to start, but we did not see the signup form (20). A person signs up in a browser and generates keys in the members area (0). Total 30.

The checklist (https://www.anchorterminal.com/benchmark/#checklist-payments):

The published rubric, also on the [x402 page](https://www.anchorterminal.com/x402/).

- 40, a machine payment protocol (x402, MPP or L402) on the tool's own endpoints. 10 to 30 when it covers only some endpoints or only goes through a third party, and the note says which.
- 20, per-call or per-unit pricing published without a login. 10 for public plan-only pricing, 0 for "contact sales" or prices behind a login.
- 20, a free tier or trial that doesn't need a card.
- 20, autonomous onboarding, meaning an agent can get access without a person signing up in a browser (keyless use, x402, a programmatic key API).

Payment platforms and agent wallets rarely charge for their own API over a machine protocol, so the first line has steps for them, and the highest one that applies counts. 40 when x402, MPP or L402 runs on all their own endpoints, 30 when it runs on part of their own API, 25 when their merchants can accept one, 20 for running a facilitator, 15 for paying as a buyer, and 0 when the only protocol is their own. Merchant acceptance sits above a facilitator because the platform's own customers can charge agents through it, while a facilitator settles for sellers who wire up the protocol themselves. The counter-argument (a facilitator does more for the protocol as a whole) has a point. Each note says which step applied.

Open-source software you run yourself is scored on its hosted or paid option if it has one. A free, self-hosted package with nothing to buy gets 20, 20 and 20 for the last three lines, and 0 to 40 for the first only if it ships a payment protocol.

## 5. Maintenance & community, 9 out of 100, up to 8 more on the total

Why it scored 9: The newest dated change found is a commit to the browser tracker on 16 March 2026, and the REST intro page was last edited on 13 March 2026, both more than 180 days before the check (0). No releases or dated changelog entries in the last 90 days (0). No API changelog. Support is by email and in-app, and response times were not checked (3). The browser tracker's last tag is v5.3.0 from 2021, iOS and Android were last committed to in November 2024, and the Node, Python, Java and Rails SDKs in 2017 (4). The Node README carries a Travis CI badge and no current CI was found (2). Total 9.

The checklist (https://www.anchorterminal.com/benchmark/#checklist-maintenance):

- 0 to 30, time since the last release, or the last published model or API change for a closed service. 30 within 30 days, 20 within 90, 10 within 180, 0 older.
- 20, at least three releases or dated changelog entries in the last 90 days.
- 0 to 25, responsiveness. Issues and pull requests answered on GitHub (the open issues and how recent the replies are). For closed services, a public changelog and a support or community channel that answers, 0 to 15.
- 15, presence in the official MCP registry under a verified namespace (MCP servers), or current official SDKs (APIs and models).
- 10, package health, current dependencies and CI.

Models are read for deprecation notice periods and model churn rather than release counts.

## 6. Reliability, 80 out of 100, up to 4 more on the total

Why it scored 80: Graded on the REST and HTTP tracking APIs with the hosted lines. Statuspage site at status.woopra.com with three components (20). Its history lists no incidents for August, September or October 2026, the three months shown (30). Limits published with numbers, 300 calls a minute, 600 an hour and 3,000 a day per project (15). A 429 status is documented and tracking calls answer 202 when queued, but no Retry-After, backoff guidance or idempotency key was found (5). No SLA found. The terms promise commercially reasonable efforts (0). The API is version 3.10 with no beta label (10). Total 80.

The checklist (https://www.anchorterminal.com/benchmark/#checklist-reliability):

Hosted APIs, MCP servers, models and platforms.

- 20, a public status page with component history (Statuspage, Instatus, BetterStack or the vendor's own).
- 0 to 30, the incident record for the last 90 days on that page. 30 for a clean record or trivial incidents only, 20 for minor incidents only, 10 for one major outage (an hour or more of a core API down, or errors across the board), 0 for several. 5 when there's no history we could read, and the note says so.
- 15, rate limits documented with numbers.
- 15, documented 429 or overload handling (Retry-After, backoff guidance), and idempotency keys or safe-retry guidance where writes are involved.
- 10, an SLA published for any paid tier.
- 10, the surface agents use is generally available, not beta or preview.

Local packages, SDKs, frameworks and stdio MCP servers.

- 20, installs from an official package with supported runtimes stated.
- 25, a public CI and test suite, passing on the default branch.
- 0 to 25, open crash or regression issues relative to activity (25 for few and handled, 0 for many, old and unanswered).
- 15, semver discipline and breaking changes called out in a changelog.
- 15, version 1.0 or later, or declared stable.

Protocols are read from their reference implementations, the public facilitators or servers, spec stability and test vectors.

## 7. Transparency & trust, 61 out of 100, up to 3.4 more on the total

Made of editorial 45, provenance 77.

Why it scored 61: Closed service with dated terms that cover the subscription, and MIT SDKs (15). The terms say the customer owns tracking data, and the pricing page states 24 months of retention. The privacy policy excludes end-user data, the DPA is sent only on request, and the GDPR page still cites Privacy Shield while the privacy policy cites the Data Privacy Framework (14). No deprecation policy or dated notices found (0). Nine sub-processors named in the terms with addresses and countries, eight in the USA and Hetzner in Germany. Where customer data is stored is not stated (16). Total 45.

The checklist (https://www.anchorterminal.com/benchmark/#checklist-transparency):

- 0 to 30, source availability and licence clarity. 30 for open source under an OSI licence, 15 for closed with clear terms, 0 for unclear terms.
- 0 to 30, data handling and retention statements that agree with each other (privacy policy, DPA, retention periods, subprocessors).
- 0 to 20, a deprecation policy or notices with dates.
- 0 to 20, telemetry disclosed with an opt-out (local software), or subprocessors and data locations disclosed (hosted).

The other half of Transparency and trust is the provenance score, computed from checked facts (below). The category score is the mean of the two.

Provenance checks not met in full (half of this category, computed from checked facts):

- Terms of service: read, states 6 of the 7 things a reader expects, and has 1 clause that costs points (7.1 of 10)
- Changelog: not found (0 of 10)
- security.txt: could not be fetched (0 of 10)

## What we couldn't check

What we couldn't read counted as absent. Publishing it on a page a plain HTTP fetch can read (not only in a browser) lets the next check count it.

- The terms of service list any robot, spider, scraper or other automated means to access the Site among unauthorised activities, and define the Site to include the Services. robots.txt on www.woopra.com allows the pages we read. We found the clause after reading the home, pricing, terms, privacy, GDPR and about pages, and sent no further request to www.woopra.com afterwards.
- unchecked: security.txt. https://www.woopra.com/.well-known/security.txt timed out twice with no bytes received.
- unchecked: whether the 30-day trial signup asks for a card. The signup form at app.woopra.com was not opened.
- unchecked: the members area and web app, including how access keys are revoked, whether a key carries its user's permissions, and any audit log.
- unchecked: GitHub stars, open issues and PyPI downloads for the SDKs.
- The status page address was not linked from the pages we read. status.woopra.com was tried directly and answered.
- No API changelog, deprecation policy, SLA, public DPA, security page or certification was found on the pages read.
- Overage rates per event are not on the pricing page.
- `lastRelease` is the date of the newest commit to the browser tracker, not a tagged release. The newest tag is v5.3.0 of 15 September 2021.

## Weaknesses

- Report endpoints run a report saved in the web app by `report_id`. No endpoint to define a query, funnel or segment was found in the reference
- `/track/ce` and `/track/identify` accept data with only the project name unless the owner turns on Secure Tracking
- No API changelog, deprecation policy or SLA was found. The terms promise commercially reasonable efforts on availability
- Server SDKs are old. The Node, Python, Java and Rails repositories were last committed to in 2017, and npm `woopra` is 1.0.2
- The terms of service forbid using any robot, spider, scraper or other automated means to access the Site, a term defined to include the Services
- Most REST operations document no response schema, and the `/profiles` page repeats the `/trends` description

## What costs an agent a turn today

The notes we give agents before they call it. Each one is a workaround an agent shouldn't need.

- Ask the owner to build and save each report in the web app first, then pass the last path segment of its URL as `report_id`
- Authenticate REST calls with HTTP Basic, using the App ID and Secret Key from the Access Keys tab, against `https://www.woopra.com/rest/3.10/`
- Stay under 300 calls a minute, 600 an hour and 3,000 a day per project. A 429 carries no documented retry interval, so back off on your own schedule
- Reuse the `snapshot` ID from the first response when paging with `offset`, or pages past 1,000 records may not agree
- Send `cookie` or a `cv_` identifier such as `cv_email` on every track call. Without one the event lands on a random profile that can't be identified later
- When reading `/logs/export`, delete the profile named in each `type: "delete"` line. The following lines log its data again under `new_id`

## When it's done

Send what changed and where it's published as a dispute (https://www.anchorterminal.com/builders/#disputes, or `POST https://www.anchorterminal.com/api/v1/contact` with `"kind": "dispute"`). Disputes are answered in public, and the listing is checked again by the same checklist. Paying for an audit or a listing claim changes nothing here.