seocrawl-mcp

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

get_ga4_summary

Compare GA4 sessions, users, conversions, engagement rate, and sessions per user against the previous period to analyze performance trends.

Instructions

GA4 sessions, users, new users, conversions, engagement rate and sessions/user, each vs the previous period.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "get_ga4_summary"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jun 25, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description bears full responsibility. It describes output metrics but omits whether the operation is read-only, any side effects, or required permissions. For a tool with no annotations, more behavioral context is needed.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that lists the key metrics. It is concise and front-loaded, but could improve readability by structuring as a list. Every word serves a purpose, though the lack of structure reduces clarity.

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?

Given zero parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is fairly complete for a simple metric tool. However, it fails to explain the return format, how the previous period is determined, and whether the tool supports different time ranges. More context would make it truly complete.

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 input schema has no defined parameters (additionalProperties: true), and context indicates zero parameters. The description adds meaning by specifying comparison to the previous period, but it does not explain how the period is chosen or if parameters can control it. With 100% schema coverage due to no params, the description contributes some value but remains vague.

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?

The description clearly states it retrieves specific GA4 metrics (sessions, users, etc.) compared to the previous period. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like compare_ga4_date_ranges by focusing on a summary. However, it could be more precise about the period definition.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, time frames, or whether it's preferable to other GA4 tools. The implied usage is for summary comparisons, but this is not explicit.

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