Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
MCP Hub

MCP Hub

by airano-ir
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

OpenPanel: Get geo data

openpanel_get_geo_data
Read-only

Retrieve the geographic distribution of visitors through the Insights API, broken down by country or other dimension for a specified site and date range.

Instructions

[UNIFIED] Get geographic distribution 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_geo_data"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
siteYes
limitNo
breakdownNocountry
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?

The readOnlyHint annotation already tells the agent this is a safe read. Beyond that the description adds only 'via Insights API', which conveys almost nothing about response shape, rate limits, or how the breakdown is aggregated. For a 5-parameter analytics query the behavioral context is thin.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, but the brevity here reflects under-specification rather than efficiency. The '[UNIFIED]' tag adds an unexplained token.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Placeholder for completeness assessment.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description mentions none of the five parameters. It does not explain that 'breakdown' selects the geo dimension (defaulting to country), what form 'date_range' takes, or what 'project_id' scopes — all of which the agent must guess.

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?

The description names a specific verb+resource: retrieving geographic distribution of visitors. An agent can tell this is a country/region breakdown tool rather than a device, page, or referrer breakdown. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like openpanel_get_device_data, keeping it from a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (site/project scoping), and no alternatives named. The agent must infer that this is the geo analogue of other breakdown tools from the name alone.

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