gtm_list_contentList GTM queue items for the authenticated PromptUI user.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum number of items (default 20, max 100) | |
| status | No | Optional status filter: draft|in_review|approved|vetoed|scheduled|published|archived | |
| channel | No | Optional channel filter: x|linkedin|facebook|instagram|youtube|email|web | |
| campaignId | No | Optional campaign id filter |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint true, and the description is consistent with those. It adds useful behavioral context by noting the result is scoped to the authenticated PromptUI user. It does not contradict the annotations.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or duplication of schema details. Every word earns its place.
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 read-only list operation with fully documented parameters, the description is mostly sufficient. However, there is no output schema, and the description does not indicate the return shape or what fields a GTM queue item contains, leaving some ambiguity about the response.
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?
All four parameters are fully documented in the input schema, including defaults, max, and allowed values, so the schema carries the parameter-semantics burden. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, which is acceptable given 100% schema coverage.
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 states a specific action ('List'), a specific resource ('GTM queue items'), and a clear scope ('for the authenticated PromptUI user'). This differentiates it from sibling tools like gtm_generate_content and gtm_publish_content without needing to open the schema.
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?
The purpose statement implies it should be used when retrieving the user's GTM queue items, but there is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. Siblings such as gtm_get_analytics could also serve read-like purposes, yet no distinction is provided.
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.
Each tool maps to a distinct action/resource: build lifecycle (build/deploy/status/list), GTM content workflow (generate/list/publish/analytics), and utility helpers (echo/shadcn_ui/web_scout) are clearly separated. Even closely related tools like get_build_status and list_builds differ in specificity.
Most tools follow a snake_case verb_noun pattern like build_app, deploy_app, and gtm_publish_content. Echo, shadcn_ui, and web_scout break the pattern but remain recognizable and do not create confusion.
11 tools cover the build workflow, GTM workflow, and a few support utilities without redundancy or bloat. The count is well within the ideal range and each tool earns its place.
The main build and GTM workflows are represented, but there is no tool to respond when get_build_status returns needs_clarification, leaving a potential dead end. Content editing/deletion and build deletion are also absent, though this may be acceptable if drafts and builds are treated as immutable.