analytics_get_ai_referralsGA4 AI / AEO referrals: ChatGPT, Perplexity, Gemini, and similar assistant traffic.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | No | ||
| days | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| date_to | No | ||
| page_id | No | ||
| sort_by | No | ||
| user_id | No | ||
| site_url | No | ||
| client_id | No | ||
| date_from | No | ||
| ad_account | No | ||
| ig_user_id | No | ||
| user_email | No | ||
| range_preset | No | ||
| activity_only | No | ||
| campaign_name | No | ||
| property_name | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only scope context (which assistants are counted), but says nothing about filtering defaults, aggregation, or the practical effect of the 17 optional params. Adequate but thin for the annotation-assisted bar.
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 with no filler; every word earns its place. It is perhaps too terse for the tool's complexity, but it is structurally clean.
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?
An output schema exists so return values needn't be explained, but for a 17-parameter analytics tool with no required params and no schema descriptions, the agent is left without filtering, date-range, or pagination semantics. The description does not close that gap.
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 schema has 17 parameters at 0% description coverage, and the description offers zero information about any of them (url, date_from/date_to, days, limit, range_preset, activity_only, etc.). With such high parameter count and no schema or description guidance, the description fails entirely to compensate.
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 the data source (GA4), the metric category (AI / AEO referrals), and concrete examples of the referrers (ChatGPT, Perplexity, Gemini), distinguishing it from general siblings like analytics_get_ga4_metrics. It lacks an explicit verb, but the resource is unambiguous enough for an agent to select it correctly.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus analytics_get_ga4_metrics or analytics_get_organic_roi, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is only weakly implied by the 'AI/AEO referrals' scope.
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.