GA4 Automation MCP Server

get_traffic_sources

Retrieve GA4 traffic source data including channels, sources, and mediums for any date range. Specify property ID and date range to get detailed traffic attribution.

Instructions

Get traffic source data including channels, sources, and mediums

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>",
      "startDate": "<startDate>",
      "endDate": "<endDate>"
    },
    "name": "get_traffic_sources"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`propertyId`	Yes	GA4 property ID
`startDate`	Yes	Start date in YYYY-MM-DD format
`endDate`	Yes	End date in YYYY-MM-DD format

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jun 12, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention whether this is a read-only operation, any required permissions, rate limits, or data freshness, leaving significant gaps for an agent.

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?

The description is a single sentence that immediately states the action and key contents. It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words.

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?

Given the tool has no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It hints at the return structure but omits details like aggregation, time granularity, or pagination, leaving gaps for a complete understanding.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond listing the returned dimensions (channels, sources, mediums), which is useful but does not compensate for the lack of parameter details already present in the schema.

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 uses the specific verb 'Get' with the resource 'traffic source data' and explicitly lists what it includes (channels, sources, mediums), making the purpose clear and distinct from sibling tools like get_page_performance or get_conversion_data.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without direction.

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

Deploy Server