Google Analytics 4 by Get MCP Ads

ga4 run advanced funnel report

ga4_run_advanced_funnel_report

Read-onlyIdempotent

Runs GA4 advanced funnel reports from ordered steps, adds optional breakdowns and next actions, and falls back to read-only step counts when advanced reporting is unavailable.

Instructions

Run the GA4 Data API v1alpha runFunnelReport endpoint with optional breakdown/next-action, falling back to read-only step counts if unavailable.

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.
`steps`	Yes	Ordered funnel steps using eventName, pagePath, or fieldName+fieldValue
`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)
`isOpenFunnel`	No	Allow users to enter at any funnel step instead of requiring the first step.
`breakdownLimit`	No	Maximum breakdown values to include in the funnel response.
`nextActionLimit`	No	Maximum next actions returned for each funnel step.
`visualizationType`	No	Supported funnel visualization mode.	STANDARD_FUNNEL
`breakdownDimension`	No	Optional breakdown dimension, e.g. deviceCategory or sessionDefaultChannelGroup
`nextActionDimension`	No	Optional next action dimension, commonly eventName
`fallbackToStepCounts`	No	If the advanced funnel is unavailable, return independent step counts with the limitation made explicit.

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.

Changed3 schema fields changedv2.1.1Oct 30, 2026

removedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Removed value: -false
```
removedInput schema / properties / steps / items / 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

A3.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive), so the description only needs to add beyond that — and it does, disclosing that this targets an alpha endpoint and that failures degrade to read-only step counts with the limitation made explicit. That degradation contract is meaningful and not fully conveyed by annotations alone.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the endpoint identity comes first and the two behavioral qualifiers follow. Nothing in it is padding.

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?

The rich schema and output schema mean return values and parameters need not be restated, but for a 13-parameter tool sitting beside a near-twin funnel sibling, the description leaves the crucial routing decision unexplained and never clarifies when the fallback path actually triggers. Adequate, with clear 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?

With 100% schema description coverage every one of the 13 parameters is already documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description echoes breakdown and next-action support, but adds no syntax, bounds (10 steps, 250k rows), or interaction rules beyond what the schema states.

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 ("Run the GA4 Data API v1alpha runFunnelReport endpoint") and adds the notable modifiers breakdown/next-action and step-count fallback. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling ga4_run_funnel_recipe, which an agent would reasonably confuse with this tool.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance, and the most relevant alternative (ga4_run_funnel_recipe, plus ga4_run_report for non-funnel reporting) is never named. The fallback sentence describes runtime behavior rather than selection criteria, so the agent must infer routing.

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