Retrieve operating systems ranked by pageviews for a given lookback window, covering Windows, macOS, iOS, Android, Linux, ChromeOS, and Other.
Operating systems ranked by pageviews: Windows, macOS, iOS, Android, Linux, ChromeOS, Other. Visits recorded before this tracking began are Unknown.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max rows. Default 10. | |
| range | No | Lookback window such as "24h", "7d" or "30d" (max 90d). Default "7d". |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does add one genuinely useful data caveat — pre-tracking visits surface as 'Unknown' — which tells the agent how to interpret an unexpected category. However it says nothing about ordering guarantees beyond 'ranked', result size limits, or how the two params interact with the output.
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?
Two tight sentences: the enumeration of categories is front-loaded and immediately useful for matching against a user's question, and the 'Unknown' caveat is a separate, non-redundant sentence. Nothing is padded.
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?
For a simple read-only aggregation with a fully documented schema and only two optional params, the description covers what the tool returns (ranked OS pageview breakdown) and a key interpretation caveat. It is missing explicit ordering/units detail, but a reader could invoke it correctly.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%: 'limit' (max 50, default 10) and 'range' (e.g. "24h", "7d", max 90d, default "7d") are fully documented in the schema already. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 names a specific resource (operating systems) and the metric (ranked by pageviews), plus enumerates the exact categories returned. It's clearly distinguishable from top_pages/top_countries/top_browsers by dimension, though it never names those siblings or says 'the OS breakdown' explicitly as a routing cue.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance at all — no indication of when an agent should pick top_systems over top_browsers, get_overview, or query_visits, and no mention of prerequisites or the default lookback behavior being appropriate for which questions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.