Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
flin-ga4-mcp

flin-ga4-mcp

by flin-agency
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

get_property

Read-onlyIdempotent

Read a Google Analytics 4 property's name, reporting timezone, currency, and service tier to verify configuration before running reports.

Instructions

Read a property's name, reporting timezone, currency and service tier.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "get_property"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
accountNo
property_idNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only a field list, which is likely redundant with the output schema, and says nothing about auth, errors, or property-selection behavior.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

One short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with zero filler. Every phrase contributes to what the tool returns.

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

Completeness2/5

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 needn't be explained, but both optional parameters are undocumented and their interaction (account vs property_id) is unclear. For a property-inspection tool this leaves a critical gap in how an agent should call it.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description never mentions the two parameters account or property_id. With no required parameters and no explanation of how to select a property, the description does not compensate for the schema gap.

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 (Read) and resource (property), and names the returned fields (name, timezone, currency, service tier). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from close siblings like get_property_configuration or list_properties, so it falls 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?

Use is implied by 'Read a property's...' but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over get_property_configuration or list_properties. No exclusions or prerequisites are 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