Lists the remembered GA4 properties with name, property ID, Firebase and quota projects, masked authentication details, and default status so you can identify the right configuration.
List the GA4 properties this server remembers: name, property id, Firebase project, quota project, how it authenticates (secrets masked) and which one is the default.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the returned fields and that credentials are masked in the output. It does not say whether this is a pure local read or triggers a network/auth call, nor what happens when no properties are configured, which are the residual behavioral gaps.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence that names the resource first, then enumerates the returned fields with no filler. Every clause (including 'secrets masked') adds information an agent would otherwise have to discover at call time.
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 no output schema and no parameters, the description compensates by enumerating the response fields, which makes the tool callable without further exploration. Slightly incomplete because it does not state the output shape (array vs object) or the empty-registry case, but nothing critical for correct invocation is missing.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so parameter semantics carry no risk and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies no filtering or arguments are needed — the returned set is whatever the server has stored.
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 verb 'List' and the resource 'GA4 properties' are both explicit, and the phrase 'this server remembers' scopes it to locally configured/registered properties, which separates it from ga4_property_details style lookups. It does not name the sibling it replaces, so an agent still has to infer that this is the discovery step.
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?
Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the entry point for discovering which properties exist and which is the default before calling ga4_run_report or ga4_set_default. There is no explicit 'use this when…' clause and no statement about what to do if the list is empty or how it relates to ga4_account_summaries.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.