MCP Google Analytics Server

ga_list_accounts

Read-onlyIdempotent

Lists all Google Analytics accounts accessible to your service account, returning account IDs needed to identify properties and retrieve analytics data.

Instructions

List all Google Analytics accounts accessible to the service account.

Use this to find account IDs for listing properties.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "ga_list_accounts"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv1.1.1Aug 6, 2026
- addedInput schema / $schema
```
Added value: +"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"
```
First observedv1.0.1Jul 30, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds useful context by clarifying that the listing is scoped to the service account's accessible accounts and that 'all' accounts are returned. There is no contradiction with annotations.

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 short sentences with no filler. The core behavior is front-loaded before the usage pointer, and every sentence earns its place.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a zero-parameter, read-only list tool with comprehensive annotations, this is complete. It conveys the output intent (account IDs) and the workflow context, and no missing detail would prevent an agent from calling it correctly.

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

Parameters4/5

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

There are zero parameters, so the schema is complete by default. The description's mention of account IDs is about output intent and workflow, not input semantics, so the baseline score of 4 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List all Google Analytics accounts accessible to the service account.' This clearly defines the tool's scope at the account level and even explains its purpose (finding account IDs for listing properties), distinguishing it from property/data-stream/reporting siblings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It explicitly tells the agent when this tool fits: to find account IDs before listing properties. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, such as ga_get_account_summaries, so it falls short of a 5, but the usage context is unmistakable.

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