kinsta_analytics_top-uasRetrieve the top user agents for a Kinsta environment to identify which browsers, devices, or clients visit your site. Provide an environment ID and optional date range to get a ranked list of traffic sources.
Get top user agents.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | No | Custom end date (YYYY-MM-DD) | |
| from | No | Custom start date (YYYY-MM-DD) | |
| env_id | Yes | The environment ID | |
| time_span | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotations, such as what data is aggregated or how time_span interacts with from/to. It does not contradict annotations, but it also does not enrich them.
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?
The description is extremely short ('Get top user agents.'), which is concise but under-specified. It front-loads the core action, but it does not earn its place as a complete tool description because it omits any context that would help an agent select or invoke the tool correctly.
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 tool with 4 parameters, no output schema, and many closely related siblings, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the required env_id, the meaning of time_span, or how this tool differs from top-browsers or top-client-ips. An agent would need to open the schema and infer context from the tool name.
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 75%, so most parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameters, such as how from/to relate to time_span or what 'top user agents' means in terms of the returned data. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.
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 'Get top user agents' states a clear verb and resource, but it is terse and does not differentiate from the many sibling analytics tools (top-countries, top-browsers, top-referrers, etc.). It identifies what it returns but not the scope or context that distinguishes it.
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?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus the other analytics top-* tools. The description does not mention the required env_id context, time_span options, or that it is a read-only analytics query. An agent must infer usage from the name and schema.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.