Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
ga4-mcp

ga4-mcp

by Walma-Labs
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

list_google_ads_links

List Google Ads accounts linked to a Google Analytics 4 property using its property ID.

Instructions

List the Google Ads accounts linked to a property.

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

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
property_idYesThe Google Analytics property ID: a number, or 'properties/' followed by a number. Use get_account_summaries to find it.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing beyond the core action. It does not state auth/permission requirements, whether the result is paginated, how links are ordered, or what happens for a property with no linked accounts.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, which suits a simple one-parameter list tool. It is efficient, though perhaps too terse given the absence of annotations and output schema.

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?

For a simple listing tool with full schema coverage this is minimally adequate, but with no annotations and no output schema it leaves an agent without any behavioral context (safety, pagination, or return shape). The gaps are real but modest given the tool's low complexity.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the property_id field is already well documented (including a pointer to get_account_summaries). The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 a well-scoped resource (Google Ads accounts linked to a property), which an agent can distinguish from the get_* and run_* siblings. It does not explicitly name or differentiate from any sibling, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

The description contains no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance. It never states that a property_id is required or where to obtain one (the schema does that), nor distinguishes this from other listing tools. Usage is only faintly implied by the word 'linked to 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