AdCopilot

GTM: update folder (staged, never published)

gtm_update_folder

DestructiveIdempotent

Rename a folder IN the managed AdCopilot workspace by folder id (staged, never published); its notes are kept.

The new name replaces the folder's current name. Nothing reaches the live
container until a person publishes the AdCopilot workspace in Tag
Manager, which AdCopilot cannot do.

Tools revision: d80f65c0.

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": {
      "container": "<container>",
      "folder_id": "<folder_id>",
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "gtm_update_folder"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes
`container`	Yes
`folder_id`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds valuable context the annotations cannot express: the mutation is staged only, never reaches the live container, and requires a human to publish via Tag Manager, which this tool cannot do. It also clarifies that folder notes survive the rename, tempering the 'destructive' label. It doesn't cover error behavior or permissions, so not a 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The purpose and the staged/publish caveat are front-loaded in the first two sentences with no filler. The trailing 'Tools revision: d80f65c0.' line is metadata noise that doesn't help an agent call the tool, and the stray line breaks add nothing, but overall it is tight.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a 3-parameter staged mutation with full annotations and an output schema, the description covers the essential semantics: what changes, what is preserved, and that publication is out of scope. The main remaining gap is the unexplained 'container' parameter and any prerequisite about resolving ids.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden. It clarifies that folder_id identifies the target and that 'name' is the replacement name, but the required 'container' parameter is never mentioned or explained, and no formats or constraints are given for any of the three required parameters.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb and resource: 'Rename a folder IN the managed AdCopilot workspace by folder id'. The scope ('managed AdCopilot workspace') is a real qualifier an agent needs, and the side note 'its notes are kept' clarifies the operation's limited blast radius. It doesn't name gtm_create_folder or gtm_list_folders for differentiation, which caps it below 5.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description makes clear this is a staged operation that has no effect on the live container until a human publishes, which is genuine when-to-use context. However, it gives no explicit exclusions or alternatives (e.g. use gtm_create_folder to make a new folder, gtm_list_folders to resolve an id), so routing relies on the agent inferring from the name.

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

All AdCopilot tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?