Google Analytics 4 by Get MCP Ads

ga4 health check

ga4_health_check

Read-onlyIdempotent

Verifies GA4 credentials, accessible properties, and metadata access for a chosen property ID without exposing OAuth tokens. Use it to confirm read-only analytics setup works before running reports.

Instructions

Read-only GA4 health check. Verifies configured credentials, accessible properties, and metadata/property access without exposing OAuth tokens.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`propertyId`	No	Optional property ID to check metadata and property details for

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

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond them by naming the verification targets and noting it works 'without exposing OAuth tokens', which tells the agent this is a safe credential probe. It stops short of saying what a failing check returns, though an output schema exists.

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?

Two tight sentences with the read-only nature and the tool's identity front-loaded, then the concrete checks. No filler or repetition of the schema.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With an output schema present and rich annotations, the description needn't explain return values. It covers what is verified and the credential-safety angle; the only gap is what the agent should do when a check fails.

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% and there is only one optional parameter, so the schema already carries the semantics. The description gestures at it ('metadata/property access') but adds no new detail such as what omitting propertyId means for the scope of checks.

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 and resource ('Read-only GA4 health check') and enumerates what it verifies (credentials, accessible properties, metadata/property access). It is clearly a preflight diagnostic rather than a reporting tool, though it never names a sibling to contrast with (e.g. ga4_list_properties or ga4_get_metadata).

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: the 'health check' framing suggests running it before real queries, and the optional propertyId hints at a targeted verification pass. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to alternatives like ga4_check_compatibility if the check fails.

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