Retrieve Analytics accounts linked to a GMP organization for account discovery and access mapping. Returns link metadata only, not GA4 performance data.
List Analytics accounts linked to a GMP organization; no GA4 performance data.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| account | No | ||
| page_size | No | ||
| page_token | No | ||
| organization | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully bounds the result content (links only, no performance metrics), but says nothing about auth/permission requirements, pagination behavior, or result limits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single compact sentence with the resource and its scope front-loaded, no filler. It is efficient, though a fragment more on paging or the account filter would have earned its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required, but with 4 parameters at 0% schema coverage and no annotations covering pagination, the description leaves an agent guessing about the 'account' filter and paging. It is too thin for a paginated listing tool with three optional parameters.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% across 4 parameters, so the description must carry the burden. It only clarifies that 'organization' refers to a GMP organization; the 'account' filter, 'page_size', and 'page_token' are never mentioned, leaving pagination and filtering semantics undocumented anywhere.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description gives a specific verb ('List') and resource ('Analytics accounts linked to a GMP organization'), and the qualifier 'no GA4 performance data' separates it from metric-returning tools. It is clearly distinguishable in practice, though it never names a sibling or an alternative explicitly.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is only implied: the 'no GA4 performance data' clause hints this is a discovery/linkage lookup rather than a reporting call. There is no explicit statement of when to choose this over alternatives such as the SA360 or report-oriented siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.