gtm_get_containerGet specific container details including name, public ID, domains, and usage context by supplying account and container IDs.
Get details of a specific container, including name, public ID, domains, and usage context.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| account_id | Yes | The GTM account ID | |
| container_id | Yes | The GTM container ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description mentions the tool is read-only, but the annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds minimal extra behavioral context (e.g., what fields are returned) but doesn't explain edge cases like invalid IDs or permissions. With annotations covering safety, this is acceptable but not rich.
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, efficient sentence that front-loads the key information. Every word adds value; no fluff or redundancy.
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 getter with full parameter schema and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It lists the main return fields and implies the usage context. Could mention error conditions or authentication, but not critical for this straightforward tool.
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 schema covers 100% of the parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description doesn't add parameter-specific meaning beyond mentioning the container ID is used, but since schema fully documents them, it's adequate.
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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'details of a specific container', listing the key fields returned (name, public ID, domains, usage context). It distinguishes from siblings like gtm_list_containers (which lists all containers) by specifying it's for a specific container.
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 description implies usage when you need details of one container, but it does not explicitly say when to use this vs. gtm_list_containers or other tools. There's no exclusion criteria or alternative guidance, which is a minor gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.