Skip to main content
Glama

OpenPanel: Get device data

openpanel_get_device_data
Read-only

Retrieve visitor breakdowns by device, browser, or OS via the Insights API to analyze audience segments and usage patterns.

Instructions

[UNIFIED] Get device/browser/OS breakdown of visitors via Insights API.

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": {
      "site": "<site>"
    },
    "name": "openpanel_get_device_data"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
siteYes
limitNo
breakdownNodevice
date_rangeNo30d
project_idNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv3.14.0
  2. Removedv3.13.1
  3. First observedv3.4.0

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the description's added value is minimal. 'Via Insights API' hints at the backend but discloses nothing about the fact that the breakdown dimension is switchable (device vs browser vs OS), whether results are aggregated or sampled, or what happens when date_range is omitted.

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?

A single tight sentence with the resource front-loaded and no filler. The bracketed '[UNIFIED]' tag adds no navigational information and slightly muddies an otherwise clean line.

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?

With five undocumented parameters, no output schema, and no annotations beyond readOnlyHint, the description is far too thin for the tool's surface area. An agent cannot tell what the response contains (counts? percentages? rows?) or how the breakdown dimension is chosen.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0% across five parameters, so the description carries the full burden and does not meet it. It gestures at the 'breakdown' concept via 'device/browser/OS' but never states that the breakdown parameter selects among those dimensions, and says nothing about site, limit, date_range, or project_id.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: returns a device/browser/OS breakdown of visitors. The one-line form lets an agent distinguish it from siblings like openpanel_get_geo_data or openpanel_get_top_pages by dimension. It stops short of explicitly naming those alternatives, and the '[UNIFIED]' prefix is unexplained jargon.

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?

No guidance on when to choose this breakdown over the geo, top-pages, or overview tools, and no mention of prerequisites or typical contexts. The agent must infer from the tool name alone that this is the visitor-technology breakdown.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools