ga4-seo-mcp

by GermaniU

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Hybrid

list_google_ads_links

Read-only

List Google Ads account links for a GA4 property by property ID to audit or verify which accounts are connected.

Instructions

List the links between a GA4 property and Google Ads accounts.

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_google_ads_links"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`property_id`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 19, 2026

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing behavioral beyond that: no note on pagination, whether one or many links can be returned per property, or any auth/scope requirements. It is essentially a restatement of purpose, not added behavioral context.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with zero filler, which is appropriate for a simple list tool. It is perhaps too terse to earn a 5, since no extra clarifying clause is offered.

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 tool is simple (one param, read-only) and an output schema exists so return shape need not be described. However, with the parameter undocumented in both schema and description and no usage context, the definition is only minimally viable.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%: property_id has no description in the schema. The description implies 'a GA4 property' but never explains the expected identifier format (numeric ID vs. properties/123 path) or that it is required. It does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 (List) and resource (links between a GA4 property and Google Ads accounts), so the agent knows exactly what is returned. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like list_properties or list_data_streams, but the Google Ads scope is distinctive enough to tell apart.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, no mention of alternatives. The agent must infer that this is the tool to call when it needs ads-link data for a known property_id.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.