Retrieve details for a Google Analytics property using its numeric ID or 'properties/' ID to inspect property information and support reporting or configuration tasks.
Returns details about a property. Args: property_id: The Google Analytics property ID. Accepted formats are: - A number - A string consisting of 'properties/' followed by a number
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| property_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.0v0.5.0v0.3.0Input schema / properties / property_id / titleRemoved value: -"Property Id"Input schema / titleRemoved value: -"get_property_detailsArguments"Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "properties": {
- "result": {
- "additionalProperties": true,
- "title": "Result",
- "type": "object"
- }
- },
- "required": [
- "result"
- ],
- "title": "get_property_detailsOutput",
- "type": "object"
-}New value: +nullDoes the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds nothing behavioral beyond that — no note on permissions/scopes required, no indication of what happens for an invalid or inaccessible property, and no return-shape context.
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?
One short purpose sentence followed by a formatting note — front-loaded and waste-free. The 'Args:' docstring styling is slightly mechanical but costs nothing in clarity.
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?
With one required param and no output schema, the description should sketch what 'details' means (display name, timezone, currency, etc.) since nothing else supplies it. It is adequate to invoke the tool correctly but leaves the agent guessing at the response content.
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% and the anyOf integer/string union is ambiguous on its own; the description compensates well by spelling out both accepted forms (bare number, or 'properties/' + number). It could go further (e.g. which form is preferred, whether the prefixed form is required by the API), but the key ambiguity is resolved.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ("Returns details about a property") and the property_id argument makes clear it fetches a single Google Analytics property. Siblings are all report/list tools, so the single-resource read is implicitly distinct, but the description never names that distinction 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?
There is no guidance on when to call this versus list_property_annotations, get_account_summaries, or the run_*_report tools. The only added content is argument format, which is a parameter concern rather than usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.