Lists available dimension and metric API names for a Google Analytics 4 property, optionally filtered by search term, to identify valid fields for reporting.
List the dimension and metric API names available for a property (optionally filtered by a search term).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| search | No | ||
| property_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare this is a read-only, non-destructive, open-world operation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful scope that only dimension and metric API names are returned, but it does not disclose pagination behavior, result volume, or whether search matches API names versus display names. With annotations carrying safety, the added behavioral context is modest.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence that front-loads the operation, resource, and optional filter. There is no redundant or boilerplate text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. For a simple two-parameter read-only metadata tool, the description covers the core purpose but omits parameter format details and search semantics, which matter because schema coverage is zero. It is adequate but not complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must supply parameter meaning. It does identify both parameters indirectly: a property and an optional search term. However, it does not explain the expected property_id format or what fields the search term matches against, leaving meaningful gaps for an agent relying solely on this text.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'List the dimension and metric API names available for a property.' This clearly distinguishes metadata discovery from sibling tools like ga4_run_report or ga4_realtime_report, which retrieve data rather than schema metadata. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings, so a 4 rather than 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The mention of an optional search filter implies how to narrow results, and the word 'metadata' implies pre-report discovery, but the description never states when to use this tool versus ga4_run_report or why an agent would need API names. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.