gtm.list_accountsRetrieve all Google Tag Manager accounts accessible to your user or service account. Use this to identify available GTM containers before managing tags, triggers, or variables.
List accessible GTM accounts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. 'Accessible' hints that results are permission-scoped to the caller, but nothing states read-only behavior, pagination, ordering, or what happens with zero accounts — all of which matter for an unannotated tool.
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 four-word sentence with the scope qualifier placed where it is read first; nothing is padded or redundant. It is efficient, though so terse that no structural cues (e.g., a follow-up hint) are present.
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?
An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required, and a zero-parameter list tool is inherently simple. Still, with no annotations and no note about its position in the accounts → containers → workspaces → tags chain, the definition leaves the agent to infer workflow context.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The absence of parameters is consistent with the empty schema.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('List ... GTM accounts') plus a scope qualifier ('accessible'), which is enough to tell it apart from gtm.list_containers, gtm.list_workspaces and gtm.list_tags by name. It does not explicitly say it is the top-level entry point of the GTM hierarchy, but the purpose is unambiguous.
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?
No when-to-use guidance and no mention of the natural next step (feeding account IDs into gtm.list_containers). The agent must infer from the naming convention that this is the root of the GTM traversal, and there is no exclusion or alternative named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.