Google Analytics 4 by Get MCP Ads

ga4 get audience diagnostics

ga4_get_audience_diagnostics

Read-onlyIdempotent

Diagnose GA4 audience configurations by combining Admin API audiences, Data API recurring audience lists, and report fallback names to identify mismatches or gaps.

Instructions

Read-only audience diagnostics from Admin API audiences, Data API recurring audience lists, and observed audienceName report fallback.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No	Maximum number of returned items or rows. The declared bounds and default apply; use pagination for additional results.
`endDate`	No	End date YYYY-MM-DD or relative (today, yesterday)
`startDate`	No	Start date YYYY-MM-DD or relative (7daysAgo, yesterday)
`datePreset`	No	Named reporting period. Use the custom date range when you need exact start and end dates.	last28days
`propertyId`	Yes	GA4 property ID (numeric, e.g., 123456789)
`includeDefinitions`	No	Include full Admin API audience definitions when available
`recurringAudienceListName`	No	Optional resource name, e.g. properties/123456789/recurringAudienceLists/abc123

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes	Original tool result: parsed JSON when the text is JSON, otherwise the text or multiple MCP content blocks. Provider fields depend on the selected query.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.0.1Sep 23, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The annotations already provide readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive hints; the description adds the multi-source behavior and a fallback, which is useful. It does not clarify what 'observed audienceName report fallback' means or how the sources are combined, so disclosure remains partial.

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?

The description is a single compact sentence with no filler and the read-only constraint is front-loaded. The dense 'observed audienceName report fallback' phrase slightly hurts readability but not length.

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?

For a read-only tool with a full input schema, an output schema, and strong annotations, the description is minimally viable. It is thin on how sources are combined and when to select it, but structured context fills most operational gaps.

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 params like propertyId, dates, limit, and includeDefinitions are already well documented. The prose description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, keeping it at the baseline.

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 identifies a specific resource ('audience') and an action ('read-only diagnostics'), and names the data sources it draws from, which is more informative than just the title. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with the sibling ga4_get_audience_export_diagnostics, and the phrase 'observed audienceName report fallback' is cryptic.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No when-to-use guidance is given. There is no mention of which sibling tools are alternatives, no conditions for choosing this over the other diagnostics tools, and no exclusions. An agent must infer the intended use from the name alone.

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