gtm_get_live_versionRetrieve the live published version of a Google Tag Manager container by providing account and container IDs.
Get the container version that is currently live (published) for a container.
| 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no further behavioral context such as return format, error conditions, or authentication needs; it merely restates the core purpose.
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, concise sentence that directly states the tool's function without any redundant wording or filler. It is well-structured and front-loaded.
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?
Given the tool's low complexity, full schema coverage, and safe read-only annotations, the description is nearly complete. It conveys the essential scope (live/published version), though it omits details about the response shape since no output schema is provided.
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?
Input schema covers both parameters (account_id, container_id) with descriptions and patterns, giving 100% coverage. The description does not add additional meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema already provides.
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 uses a specific verb 'Get' and clearly identifies the resource as 'the container version that is currently live (published)'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like gtm_list_versions (which lists all versions) and gtm_get_container (which gets container metadata).
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 its usage context by specifying 'currently live (published)', but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide any exclusions. No mention of alternatives like gtm_list_versions or gtm_publish_version.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.