Skip to main content
Glama
debanjanbasu

grr

by debanjanbasu
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Rust
Local

analyticsadmin.properties.getDataRetentionSettings

Retrieves the data retention settings for a Google Analytics property, returning the requested resource as JSON for compliance and data governance checks.

Instructions

Returns the singleton data retention settings for this property [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: acknowledgeUserDataCollection, create, delete, get, list, patch, runAccessReport, updateDataRetentionSettings.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYes[URL path segment] Required. The name of the settings to lookup. Format: properties/{property}/dataRetentionSettings Example: "properties/1000/dataRetentionSettings"
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
userDataRetentionNo
eventDataRetentionNo
resetUserDataOnNewActivityNo

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 settings to lookup. Format: properties/{property}/dataRetentionSettings Example: \"properties/1000/dataRetentionSettings\""New value: +"[URL path segment] Required. The name of the settings to lookup. Format: properties/{property}/dataRetentionSettings Example: \"properties/1000/dataRetentionSettings\""
    • addedInput schema / properties / name / pattern
      Added value: +"^properties/[^/]+/dataRetentionSettings$"
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "eventDataRetention": {
+      "enum": [
+        "RETENTION_DURATION_UNSPECIFIED",
+        "TWO_MONTHS",
+        "FOURTEEN_MONTHS",
+        "TWENTY_SIX_MONTHS",
+        "THIRTY_EIGHT_MONTHS",
+        "FIFTY_MONTHS"
+      ],
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "name": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "resetUserDataOnNewActivity": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "userDataRetention": {
+      "enum": [
+        "RETENTION_DURATION_UNSPECIFIED",
+        "TWO_MONTHS",
+        "FOURTEEN_MONTHS",
+        "TWENTY_SIX_MONTHS",
+        "THIRTY_EIGHT_MONTHS",
+        "FIFTY_MONTHS"
+      ],
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, yet it only says the resource is returned as JSON. It does not state required OAuth scopes/permissions, behavior when retention settings are unset, or error conditions. The request-body-building sentence is boilerplate that is meaningless for a GET.

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 core purpose is front-loaded, but the second sentence is generic transport boilerplate irrelevant to a read-only GET and consumes as much space as the actual tool-specific content. The long sibling roster is moderately useful but undifferentiated.

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 described, and the required `name` parameter is fully specified in the schema. What remains missing are permission requirements and edge-case behavior, which are minor given the schema richness.

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%, including a pattern and format example for `name`, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description's only added meaning is the precedence rule for typed parameters over `params`, which is routine plumbing rather than resource-specific guidance.

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?

First sentence gives a specific verb and resource ('Returns the singleton data retention settings for this property') and explicitly flags HTTP GET, so the agent knows this is a single-object read rather than a list. The trailing sibling enumeration confirms the adjacent operations (get, patch, updateDataRetentionSettings) exist, though it does not contrast them.

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?

Usage is only implied by the resource name; there is no statement of when to call this versus analyticsadmin.properties.get or updateDataRetentionSettings. The sibling list at the end gives adjacency signals but no selection criteria.

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