branchly

get_top_devices

Read-only

Top device categories (e.g. 'desktop', 'mobile', 'tablet') across all request types, ranked by occurrence count. Use this to understand the device mix of real users interacting with the embed.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No	Maximum number of rows to return, ordered by count descending.
`time_filter`	No	Time window for the analytics query. Accepts either: (a) a preset enum value: 'this_month', 'this_year', 'last_month', 'last_30_days' (default), 'last_6_months', 'last_12_months'; or (b) an explicit ISO date range as 'YYYY-MM-DD,YYYY-MM-DD' (inclusive).	last_30_days

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: results span all request types, are ranked by occurrence count, and concern real users of the embed. This gives the agent insight beyond the schema and annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, no filler. The first sentence states what the tool returns and how results are ordered; the second gives a concrete use case. Every word earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the fully documented input schema, the presence of an output schema, and the read-only annotation, the description is complete enough. It covers what the tool returns, how it is scoped, and why an agent might call it.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and both parameters (limit, time_filter) are already fully documented in the input schema. The description reinforces the ranking concept but does not add new parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description identifies the exact resource (device categories), the aggregation scope ('across all request types'), and the ordering ('ranked by occurrence count'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling get_top_* analytics tools such as get_top_geographies or get_top_languages.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use this to understand the device mix of real users interacting with the embed.' It does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls just short of full routing guidance.

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

All branchly tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct resource or metric, and even the closely related analytics tools (e.g. get_top_languages vs get_top_locales, get_top_interaction_sources vs get_top_clicked_urls) are explicitly differentiated in their descriptions. There is no real overlap that would cause an agent to misselect.

Naming Consistency4/5

The verb prefixes create_, get_, list_, read_, and update_ are used predictably, and there is no mixing of camelCase or other conventions. The main inconsistency is that read_sessions is actually a list operation while list_nodes is the equivalent pattern for nodes, and read_session_detail is the singular read.

Tool Count2/5

At 33 tools, this set is well beyond the 16-25 'heavy' range and far above the typical well-scoped 3-15 range. Many of the get_top_* analytics endpoints are individually distinct but could likely be consolidated into fewer parameterized tools to reduce agent selection overhead.

Completeness3/5

The read and analytics side is comprehensive, but the management lifecycle has notable gaps: knowledge nodes support create/read/update but no delete, and data sources/tools lack create/delete operations. Agents can work around some gaps, but content deletion is a clear dead end for a knowledge-base management surface.

Resources

Need Help?