flin-ga4-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

check_compatibility

Read-onlyIdempotent

Verify which Google Analytics 4 core-report dimensions and metrics can be combined, so you can validate query compatibility before running reports.

Instructions

Check which core-report dimensions/metrics work together before querying.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "metrics": "<metrics>"
    },
    "name": "check_compatibility"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`account`	No
`metrics`	Yes
`dimensions`	No
`property_id`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Oct 31, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds that this is a validation step, but does not say whether incompatibility is returned as an error or a report, nor whether the check is purely metadata-based or requires property context.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, appropriate for a narrow validation tool. It is arguably over-terse rather than padded, which is a completeness issue rather than a structure one.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, for a validator the description should say what a negative result means and how it relates to run_report; with 0% param coverage and four parameters, this single sentence leaves real gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% for all four parameters. The description names only dimensions and metrics; account and property_id — plausibly significant for GA4 metadata scoping — are left entirely unexplained in both schema and description. No naming-format hints are given for metric/dimension identifiers.

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?

States a specific verb (check) and resource (compatibility of core-report dimensions/metrics), which is distinct from run_report — it validates rather than executes. It is clear but terse; the phrase 'core-report' and 'work together' are the only signals of scope.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

'before querying' gives a clear temporal/contextual cue that this is a preflight validation step ahead of run_report. It does not name the sibling or state what to do when the check fails, so it stops short of explicit alternatives/exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server