Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
ga4-seo-mcp

ga4-seo-mcp

by GermaniU
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

list_data_streams

Read-only

Retrieve all web, iOS, and Android data streams for a GA4 property, including measurement IDs (G-XXXXXXX) and default URIs for web streams.

Instructions

List the data streams (web, iOS, Android) of a GA4 property.

Web streams include their measurement ID (G-XXXXXXX) and default URI.

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": {
      "property_id": "<property_id>"
    },
    "name": "list_data_streams"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
property_idYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful content about what web streams contain (measurement ID, default URI), but says nothing about pagination, ordering, or what happens for a property with no streams.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope; the second sentence adds non-redundant detail about web stream contents. No filler.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The output schema carries the return-value burden, and annotations cover the read-only/no-side-effect profile, so the description is nearly sufficient for a simple one-param list tool. The remaining gap is the undocumented property_id format, which neither schema nor description resolves.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The schema provides no description for property_id (0% coverage), and the description only implies it through 'of a GA4 property'. It does not state the expected ID format (numeric vs. 'properties/123'), which is the main thing an agent needs for this single required parameter.

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 ('List the data streams') scoped to a GA4 property, and enumerates the stream types (web, iOS, Android). It is distinguishable from the singular sibling get_data_stream, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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 or when-not-to-use guidance. It never tells the agent to prefer get_data_stream for a single stream, nor when this list should be called versus list_properties or get_property to discover a property.

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