Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Unilytics MCP Server

Unilytics MCP Server

Official
by TeamUnilytics
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

list_connections

Read-only

Lists the Search Console, GA4, and other data-source accounts linked to a Unilytics project, returning source types and account or workspace details so you can verify each connection.

Instructions

List the data-source accounts linked to a project in the Unilytics app (e.g. Search Console, GA4).

Returns each linked source's type and its linked accounts or workspace (ids, and names or emails
where the app saved them), so a step can tell whether the client's Search Console or GA4 is
linked. This server doesn't return those sources' data.

Args:
    project_id: The project's id (from list_projects).

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": {
      "project_id": "<project_id>"
    },
    "name": "list_connections"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
project_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.1.0
    • removedInput schema / properties / config
      Removed value: -{
-  "default": null,
-  "title": "config",
-  "type": "string"
-}
  2. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds real value on top: it describes what comes back per source, notes that ids and names/emails are only present 'where the app saved them', and explicitly disclaims returning source data.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then return shape, then the negative scope, then the argument. Slightly verbose in the parenthetical about names/emails and the Python-style 'Args:' block, but no sentence is wasted.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, return shape, data caveats, and the one argument's source — nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the parameter, and it does: project_id is identified as the project's id and its provenance (from list_projects) is given. It does not describe the id's format, but the provenance hint is the operationally useful part.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

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-source accounts linked to a project') with concrete examples (Search Console, GA4) and an explicit negative scope ('This server doesn't return those sources' data'), which separates it from tools that fetch source data.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives a clear use case — determining whether the client's Search Console or GA4 is linked before a step runs — and routes the agent to list_projects for the required id. It stops short of naming an alternative tool or a when-not-to-use condition.

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