gtm_list_versionsList all container versions with IDs, names, and entity counts to enable version tracking and rollback decisions.
List all container versions, with their IDs, names, and entity counts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| account_id | Yes | The GTM account ID | |
| page_token | No | Continuation token from a previous call to fetch the next page of results | |
| 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 uses the verb 'List' which aligns with the readOnlyHint and non-destructive annotations, but it does not add any extra transparency about behavior beyond what the annotations already provide. It does not mention potential side effects, result size, or rate limits.
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 sentence, directly to the point, with no unnecessary words. It clearly communicates the tool's function without verbosity.
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 description sufficiently conveys the essential purpose and expected output. It does not explicitly mention pagination, but the presence of a page_token parameter implies it. Overall, it is complete enough for a straightforward list operation, but a slight gap exists regarding pagination behavior.
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 input schema already provides descriptions for each parameter (account_id, container_id, page_token), and the tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond that. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3, and the description adds nothing new.
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 that the tool lists all container versions and specifies the returned fields (IDs, names, entity counts), making the action and resource unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that list other entities (accounts, containers, workspaces, etc.).
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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention conditions or limitations. However, the tool's uniqueness among siblings (only version-listing tool) makes its usage context implicit, but this is not stated explicitly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.