Google Analytics 4 by Get MCP Ads

ga4 get ecommerce diagnostics

ga4_get_ecommerce_diagnostics

Read-onlyIdempotent

Diagnose GA4 ecommerce tracking coverage across core events, revenue metrics, and item-level reporting for a date range to identify data gaps.

Instructions

Read-only ecommerce coverage diagnostics for core ecommerce events, revenue metrics, and item-level reporting over a date range.

Input 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)

Output 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.

Changed2 schema fields changedv2.1.1Oct 30, 2026

removedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Removed value: -false
```

changedOutput schema / properties / result / anyOf

Previous value: -[
-  {
-    "additionalProperties": true,
-    "properties": {},
-    "type": "object"
-  },
-  {
-    "items": {},
-    "type": "array"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "number"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "boolean"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]New value: +[
+  {
+    "additionalProperties": {},
+    "properties": {},
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  {
+    "items": {},
+    "type": "array"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "number"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "boolean"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "null"
+  }
+]

First observedv2.0.1Sep 23, 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, and non-destructive behavior, so 'Read-only' in the description is partly redundant. What the description does add is the subject matter of the diagnosis and the date-range scoping, but it says nothing about what the diagnostics report (pass/fail checks, missing-event lists, coverage percentages) — the actual behavioral value an agent would need.

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 that packs verb, resource, scope, and time dimension with no filler. It is tightly written, though the terseness leaves no room for the one clarifying clause (what the diagnostics actually surface) that would justify a top score.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and parameter documentation is complete. However, for a diagnostics tool whose whole value is telling the agent what is wrong or missing, the description omits the nature of the findings and any guidance on interpreting or acting on them, leaving a meaningful gap.

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 coverage is 100%, so all five parameters — including the datePreset enum and limit bounds — are already fully documented in the schema. The description only echoes the date-range concept and adds no syntax, precedence rules (datePreset vs. startDate/endDate), or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific resource ('ecommerce coverage diagnostics') and the scope it inspects: core ecommerce events, revenue metrics, and item-level reporting over a date range. This separates it from the generic reporting siblings (ga4_run_report, ga4_run_pivot_report) by domain, though it never explicitly names a sibling alternative.

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: an agent can infer this is for validating that ecommerce tracking data is present and usable before trusting ecommerce reports. There is no explicit 'use this when' clause, no prerequisites, and no guidance on when the other diagnostics tools (audience, BigQuery export, server-side tagging) should be preferred instead.

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