gtm_list_triggers_and_variablesTriggers in the LIVE version with their conditions in plain words (e.g. 'Page Path starts with /checkout/thank-you') and which tags use each one, plus user-defined variables (type and source) and the enabled built-in variables.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| container | No | Container public id like 'GTM-ABC123' (or its name), from gtm_list_containers. Only needed when there's more than one. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: results come from the LIVE version (not draft/workspace), conditions are rendered in plain language, and it enumerates the three content categories returned. It doesn't discuss pagination or result size, keeping it from 5.
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?
One dense sentence that front-loads the resource and immediately gives a concrete example of the plain-word condition format. Efficient, though the parenthetical example costs space relative to its informational value.
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?
No output schema exists, and the description compensates by enumerating exactly what the response contains (triggers, conditions, tag usage, user-defined variables, built-in variables). Combined with read-only annotations and a single optional param, that is nearly complete; only result volume/pagination behavior is unstated.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100% and the single optional 'container' param is fully documented with format example and the multi-container caveat. The description adds no parameter-level information, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb (list) and resource (triggers and variables) and enumerates the returned content: trigger conditions in plain words, tags using each trigger, user-defined variables with type/source, and enabled built-in variables. It doesn't explicitly contrast with the sibling gtm_list_tags, which partly overlaps via 'which tags use each one', so it stops short of 5.
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 statement of when to reach for this versus gtm_list_tags, gtm_container_overview, or gtm_audit_container, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The only conditional guidance ('Only needed when there's more than one') lives in the schema, not the description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.