AdCopilot

GTM: update trigger (staged, never published)

gtm_update_trigger

DestructiveIdempotent

Update a trigger IN the managed AdCopilot workspace by trigger id (staged, never published).

Only the fields passed change; the rest of the trigger is kept, and a
trigger edited by someone else in between is refused rather than
overwritten. Each `parameter` entry replaces the parameter with the same
key; a filter list replaces the trigger's list.

Tools revision: 5c9bea8f.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	No
`type`	No
`filter`	No
`container`	Yes
`parameter`	No
`event_name`	No
`trigger_id`	Yes
`auto_event_filter`	No
`custom_event_filter`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, yet the description adds material behavior the agent could not infer: edits are staged and never published, updates are partial, concurrent edits by another actor are refused rather than overwritten (optimistic concurrency), and 'parameter'/'filter' entries replace rather than append. Those are exactly the operational risks an agent needs before calling.

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?

Two tight paragraphs with the operation and staging constraint front-loaded, then replacement/concurrency semantics. The trailing 'Tools revision: 5c9bea8f.' is build metadata that consumes attention without helping invocation.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-shape explanation is unnecessary, and annotations carry the safety profile; the description covers staging, concurrency conflicts and field-replacement rules. The remaining gap is the undocumented bulk of the 9-parameter surface, which is left to GTM domain knowledge.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% across 9 parameters, so the description must compensate; it does partially, explaining replace-by-key semantics for `parameter` and whole-list replacement for `filter`, plus the trigger_id lookup. It says nothing about name, type, event_name, auto_event_filter or custom_event_filter, and the relationship between `container` and the 'managed AdCopilot workspace' is left implicit.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Update a trigger') plus a scope qualifier ('IN the managed AdCopilot workspace', 'by trigger id'), which cleanly separates it from gtm_create_trigger, gtm_list_triggers and the sibling updaters gtm_update_tag / gtm_update_variable. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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?

Partial-update intent is implied ('Only the fields passed change'), which tells the agent this is a patch, not a full replace. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no named alternative (e.g. gtm_create_trigger for new triggers, gtm_list_triggers to resolve the id first).

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?