Retrieve detailed information about a Google Analytics property by providing its property ID. Use this to access property settings and configuration data.
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.
v0.2.2Input schema / requiredAdded value: +[
+ "property_id"
+]v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or the scope of 'details' returned. For a tool lacking annotations, more context is needed.
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?
The description is extremely concise, with only two sentences and zero waste. The key information is front-loaded, and every sentence serves a purpose.
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?
For a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the parameter format but omits what 'details' includes or any behavioral context. It is minimally complete but lacks depth.
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?
The description adds significant value beyond the schema by explaining the accepted formats for property_id (number or string with prefix). Since schema description coverage is 0%, this compensation is crucial and well done.
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?
The description clearly states the tool returns details about a property, using a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like get_account_summaries or list_property_annotations, which also retrieve property-related information.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus its siblings or alternatives. The description only explains what the tool does, not the context or prerequisites for its use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.