ga_list_propertiesList accessible Google Analytics 4 properties with their numeric IDs and linked accounts. Use it to identify the correct GA4 property ID before querying analytics data.
Elenca le proprietà Google Analytics 4 accessibili, con il loro ID numerico e l'account.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.21Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe non-mutating read. The description adds value by naming the returned fields (ID, account), but says nothing about pagination, result ordering, empty-result behavior, or auth requirements, so it stays at a moderate level.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, stating action and returned fields. Every clause earns its place.
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?
For a parameterless read-only listing tool with annotations covering safety, the description is nearly sufficient: it names the resource and the fields returned. Only minor gaps remain (ordering, pagination, empty case), and no output schema exists to cover them.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies per the rubric. The description correctly clarifies that the output is the accessible property set with ID and account, which is the only semantic detail available for a no-input tool.
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?
States a clear verb+resource: lists accessible Google Analytics 4 properties. It also specifies the returned payload (numeric ID and account), which helps an agent distinguish it from reporting siblings like ga_report. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from those siblings, so it stops 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.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the discovery step to obtain property IDs before calling ga_report, but the description never says when to use it or when another sibling is preferred. No prerequisites or exclusions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.