get_audienceVisitor breakdown by device, browser, or operating system.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| site | Yes | Site handle from list_sites. | |
| limit | No | Max rows (default 20). | |
| range | No | A preset (today, yesterday, this_week, last_week, this_month, last_month, last_7d, last_14d, last_28d, last_30d, last_90d, all_time) or a custom span "YYYY-MM-DD/YYYY-MM-DD" interpreted in the site's timezone. Defaults to last_30d. | |
| dimension | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds no behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation. It does not disclose default dimension behavior, output format, or any limitations, all of which would be useful for a reporting tool.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence that states the core functionality without unnecessary words. Perfectly concise.
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?
Given the schema covers parameters well and annotations indicate read-only, the description is minimally adequate. However, without an output schema, the agent may not understand the response structure, and no guidance is given on default behavior when 'dimension' is omitted.
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?
The description maps the 'dimension' parameter to its semantic options (device, browser, OS), providing mild clarification beyond the schema enum. However, with 75% schema coverage, the additional value is limited.
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?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Visitor breakdown by device, browser, or operating system.' This uses a specific verb ('breakdown') and resource ('visitor') while distinguishing it from siblings like get_geo (geographic) and get_traffic_sources (sources).
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 implies use cases by listing dimensions, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of when not to use it or any contrast with sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool addresses a distinct analytics facet (overview, traffic, geo, audience, pages, funnel, live, weekly report, site context, site list) with no overlapping purposes. An agent can easily choose the right tool based on the question.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (get_*) except list_sites, which still uses a clear verb_noun structure. The naming is uniform and predictable.
With 10 tools, the set is well-scoped for an analytics server, covering both summary and breakdown views without unnecessary bloat. Each tool earns its place.
The tool set covers core analytics needs: overview, traffic sources, audience, geo, pages, funnel, live, and weekly comparisons. Minor gaps like custom date ranges or event detail drill-downs are not critical for standard store analytics.