Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
GHB MCP

GHB MCP

by gutohbarbosa-coder
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

ga4_admin_read

Read-only

Read authorized GA4 property configurations, including data streams, key events, custom dimensions, and custom metrics.

Instructions

Lê configurações de propriedade GA4 autorizada.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "propertyId": "<propertyId>",
      "resource": "<resource>"
    },
    "name": "ga4_admin_read"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resourceYes
pageTokenNo
propertyIdYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0-rc.2

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The word 'autorizada' hints that an authorized property is required, adding a small amount of context, but pagination behavior (pageToken) and per-resource behavior are undisclosed.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single short, front-loaded sentence with no waste, but its brevity comes from under-specification rather than discipline. Nothing extraneous, yet nothing beyond the minimum is present.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a 3-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is far too thin. It does not describe what is returned per resource type or how results are paged, leaving significant gaps for the agent.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description adds no parameter meaning at all. It never explains the 'resource' enum values, nor that 'pageToken' exists for paging through large collections, leaving the agent to infer everything from the bare schema.

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 ('Lê') and resource ('configurações de propriedade GA4'), which separates it from the reporting sibling ga4_report. However, it never mentions the resource kinds actually selectable (dataStreams, keyEvents, customDimensions, customMetrics), so the scope of 'configurações' stays vague.

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 and no explicit distinction from siblings such as ga4_report or gtm_read. Nothing tells the agent whether this is for admin metadata versus analytics data, nor when to prefer it over the alternatives.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools