gtm_list_accountsLists all Google Tag Manager accounts accessible to the signed-in Google user in one request, so you can identify available accounts before auditing containers or workspaces.
List every Google Tag Manager account the signed-in Google user can see (1 request).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world behavior, so the safety burden is covered. The description adds two useful facts beyond that: results are limited to accounts visible to the signed-in Google user, and the call costs a single request. It says nothing about pagination or result ordering, which matters for a listing 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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with the permission scope and request cost appended compactly. No filler and nothing that repeats structured fields.
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 values need no explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile. For a zero-parameter root listing tool this is nearly sufficient; only the pagination/ordering behavior and its role as a discovery entry point are left implicit.
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 no parameter semantics to explain; the baseline for a parameterless tool is 4. The description correctly signals that no filtering or scope arguments are accepted.
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 every Google Tag Manager account') and scopes it to what the signed-in user can see. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, but the root-level 'accounts' granularity distinguishes it from gtm_list_containers, gtm_list_environments, and the other list_* children.
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 top-level nature of the call is implied but never stated as an entry point ('use this first to discover account IDs, then use gtm_list_containers'). There is no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives guidance for the many sibling listing tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.