gtm_get_triggerRetrieve full details of a specific Google Tag Manager trigger, including its type, filters, and conditions.
Get full details of a specific trigger, including its type, filters, and conditions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| account_id | Yes | The GTM account ID | |
| trigger_id | Yes | The GTM trigger ID | |
| container_id | Yes | The GTM container ID | |
| workspace_id | Yes | The GTM workspace ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds value by specifying what 'full details' includes (type, filters, conditions), giving context beyond the schema. It does not contradict annotations and adds meaningful behavioral context about the returned data.
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?
A single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource, and includes the key details of the return content. No fluff or redundant information. Fully 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?
The tool is simple (4 IDs to fetch a trigger), annotations cover read-only and idempotent nature, and the description mentions the key fields in the response (type, filters, conditions). With no output schema, this provides enough context for an agent to know what will be returned. It could optionally mention error handling, but that is not required for a read-only get operation. Overall it is complete for its scope.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% with each parameter having a brief description (e.g., 'The GTM trigger ID'). The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what schema already states. The baseline is 3 when schema covers all parameters, and no extra insight is provided here.
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 resource 'specific trigger', with details on what is included (type, filters, conditions). It clearly distinguishes from list_triggers, which is a sibling, by specifying it fetches a single trigger's full details. This is a clear and specific statement.
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 for retrieving details of a specific trigger, which is evident from the sibling tools (list_triggers for listing, create/update/delete for mutations). It provides clear context but does not explicitly exclude alternative tools or state 'when not to use'. However, the purpose is unambiguous enough that an agent can infer when to invoke it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.