Skip to main content
Glama
debanjanbasu

grr

by debanjanbasu
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Rust
Local

analyticsadmin.accounts.provisionAccountTicket

Requests a ticket to create a Google Analytics Admin account using account details and a redirect URI, returning the API response as JSON.

Instructions

Requests a ticket for creating an account [HTTP POST] — creates or triggers a change; refused under --readonly safety profiles. Returns the API's response resource as JSON — request body is a JSON GoogleAnalyticsAdminV1betaProvisionAccountTicketRequest object accepting account, redirectUri; pass it via params or whole via body_file Siblings over the same resource: delete, get, getDataSharingSettings, list, patch, runAccessReport, searchChangeHistoryEvents.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
queryNoExtra KEY=VALUE query pairs for endpoints whose parameters Discovery does not describe.
paramsNoParameter map merged into the request; typed parameters win.
dry_runNoReturn the request that would be sent, without sending it.
body_fileNoRead the request body from this file ('-' for stdin) instead of building one from the parameters. The body is a JSON GoogleAnalyticsAdminV1betaProvisionAccountTicketRequest object.
request_bodyNoRequest body of type GoogleAnalyticsAdminV1betaProvisionAccountTicketRequest: pass it via `params` (merged into the built body) or whole via `body_file`.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
accountTicketIdNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / body_file / description
      Previous value: -"Read the request body from this file ('-' for stdin) instead of building one from the parameters."New value: +"Read the request body from this file ('-' for stdin) instead of building one from the parameters. The body is a JSON GoogleAnalyticsAdminV1betaProvisionAccountTicketRequest object."
    • addedInput schema / properties / request_body
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Request body of type GoogleAnalyticsAdminV1betaProvisionAccountTicketRequest: pass it via `params` (merged into the built body) or whole via `body_file`.",
+  "properties": {
+    "account": {
+      "properties": {
+        "createTime": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "deleted": {
+          "type": "boolean"
+        },
+        "displayName": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "gmpOrganization": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "name": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "regionCode": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "updateTime": {
+          "type": "string"
+        }
+      },
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "redirectUri": {
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "accountTicketId": {
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}
  3. First observed

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does reasonably well: it discloses HTTP POST, that it 'creates or triggers a change', that it is gated behind readonly safety profiles, and that it returns the API response resource as JSON. It omits permissions/authorization needs and what the ticket ultimately enables, which keeps it below a 5.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The purpose is front-loaded and the content is dense but mostly on-point. However the final clause runs on without punctuation ('...whole via `body_file` Siblings over the same resource:') and the sibling enumeration plus body-mechanics repeat information already in the schema, diluting the signal.

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

Completeness4/5

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

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description still notes the response is JSON. For a 5-parameter, zero-annotation mutation tool it covers the safety profile and body construction well; the remaining gap is the absence of authorization/permission expectations and the lifecycle meaning of a 'ticket'.

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%, so baseline is 3; the schema already documents query, params, dry_run, body_file and the request_body fields account/redirectUri. The description restates that the body accepts account and redirectUri and mentions the params-vs-body_file routes, adding little beyond the structured data.

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?

It names a specific verb and resource ('Requests a ticket for creating an account') and is clearly not one of the read/list siblings. It enumerates sibling tools but does not say how this operation differs from them in practice (e.g., that the ticket is a prerequisite to account creation), 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.

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The only usage signal is the incidental note that it is 'refused under --readonly safety profiles', which implies it belongs in a read-write context. The trailing sibling list is a navigation aid but provides no when-to-use/when-not routing or prerequisites (who may request a ticket, what to do with it afterwards).

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