Skip to main content
Glama
debanjanbasu

grr

by debanjanbasu
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Rust
Local

analyticsadmin.properties.dataStreams.measurementProtocolSecrets.get

Retrieve a single measurement protocol secret for a GA4 data stream by its resource name. Use it to inspect secret details before updating, deleting, or listing sibling secrets.

Instructions

Lookup for a single MeasurementProtocolSecret [HTTP GET]. Returns the requested resource as JSON — request bodies are built from the typed parameters (typed flags win over the params map), or read whole from body_file Siblings over the same resource: create, delete, list, patch.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYes[URL path segment] Required. The name of the measurement protocol secret to lookup. Format: properties/{property}/dataStreams/{dataStream}/measurementProtocolSecrets/{measurementP
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.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNo
displayNameNo
secretValueNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / name / description
      Previous value: -"Required. The name of the measurement protocol secret to lookup. Format: properties/{property}/dataStreams/{dataStream}/measurementProtocolSecrets/{measurementP"New value: +"[URL path segment] Required. The name of the measurement protocol secret to lookup. Format: properties/{property}/dataStreams/{dataStream}/measurementProtocolSecrets/{measurementP"
    • addedInput schema / properties / name / pattern
      Added value: +"^properties/[^/]+/dataStreams/[^/]+/measurementProtocolSecrets/[^/]+$"
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "displayName": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "name": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "secretValue": {
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the operation is an HTTP GET returning the requested resource as JSON, which tells the agent it is a read. However, the trailing explanation about building request bodies from typed parameters or `body_file` is irrelevant for a GET (no body is sent) and risks confusing the agent, and there is no mention that the returned secret value is sensitive or what happens when the name does not resolve.

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 whole definition is short, but the middle clause about request-body construction is dead weight for a pure GET and dilutes the message. Trimming that clause would leave a tighter, more accurate two-sentence definition.

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 and the input schema is fully annotated, so the description does not need to explain return values or parameter formats. Given the tool's low complexity, the definition plus structured fields are nearly sufficient; only permission requirements and the sensitivity of the retrieved secret are left unstated.

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 the schema already documents `name` (with a regex and full resource-name format), `query`, `params`, `dry_run`, and `body_file`. The description's note that typed parameters win over the `params` map adds a small precedence clarification, but most of its parameter text restates what the schema already says; baseline 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?

The description names a specific verb and resource ('Lookup for a single MeasurementProtocolSecret'), states the HTTP method, and explicitly lists the sibling operations (create, delete, list, patch) over the same resource, which lets an agent distinguish this from the list variant. It is not fully specific about what a 'secret' contains, but the resource identity is clear.

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?

Mentioning the sibling set implies this is the single-resource fetch versus the list operation, but the description never says explicitly when to prefer this over list or what prerequisites (e.g. needing the full resource name under a data stream) apply. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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