GA4 MCP Server

get_traffic_sources

Retrieve breakdown of website traffic by source (organic, direct, referral, etc.) from Google Analytics 4 for a specified property and date range.

Instructions

Get traffic breakdown by source (organic, direct, referral, etc.)

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": {
      "propertyId": "<propertyId>",
      "startDate": "<startDate>",
      "endDate": "<endDate>"
    },
    "name": "get_traffic_sources"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`endDate`	Yes	End date in YYYY-MM-DD format
`startDate`	Yes	Start date in YYYY-MM-DD format
`propertyId`	Yes	GA4 Property ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jul 10, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It indicates a read operation (getting data) but discloses no behavioral traits such as whether data is aggregated, paginated, or time-bounded beyond the date range. No side effects or permissions are mentioned.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence that conveys the core purpose without any fluff. Every word is necessary and earns its place.

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 the lack of output schema and annotations, the description is minimal. It covers the basic purpose but does not provide enough context for an agent to understand the response format, pagination, or any limitations. For a simple list tool, it is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters (propertyId, startDate, endDate). The tool description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the verb 'Get' and the resource 'traffic breakdown by source', listing examples like organic, direct, referral. However, it does not distinguish this tool from its sibling 'get_traffic_summary', which might have overlapping functionality.

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 like 'get_traffic_summary' or 'get_top_pages'. The description merely states what it does without context or exclusions.

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

Deploy Server