Skip to main content
Glama
ambit1977

Google Tag Manager MCP Server

by ambit1977

check_auth_status

Verify your current authentication status with Google Tag Manager to ensure you can manage tags, triggers, and configurations.

Instructions

現在の認証状態を確認します

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Implementation Reference

  • src/index.js:58-64 (registration)
    Registers the 'check_auth_status' tool, including its name, description, and empty input schema, in the ListToolsRequestSchema handler.
    {
      name: 'check_auth_status',
      description: '現在の認証状態を確認します',
      inputSchema: {
        type: 'object',
        properties: {},
      },
  • Defines the input schema (empty object) for the check_auth_status tool.
    {
      name: 'check_auth_status',
      description: '現在の認証状態を確認します',
      inputSchema: {
        type: 'object',
        properties: {},
      },
  • Main handler for executing the check_auth_status tool: retrieves OAuth2Auth from GTMClient, calls isAuthenticated(), and returns JSON response with status.
    case 'check_auth_status': {
      const oauth2Auth = this.gtmClient.getOAuth2Auth();
      const isAuthenticated = oauth2Auth.isAuthenticated();
      return {
        content: [
          {
            type: 'text',
            text: JSON.stringify({
              authenticated: isAuthenticated,
              message: isAuthenticated ? '認証済みです' : '未認証です。get_auth_urlツールで認証URLを取得してください。'
            }, null, 2),
          },
        ],
      };
  • Implements the authentication status check by verifying the presence of access_token in OAuth2 client credentials.
    isAuthenticated() {
      return !!this.oAuth2Client.credentials.access_token;
    }
  • Helper method in GTMClient that provides the OAuth2Auth instance to the tool handler.
    getOAuth2Auth() {
      return this.oauth2Auth;
    }
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool checks authentication status but doesn't reveal any behavioral traits—such as whether it's read-only, what data it returns (e.g., user info, expiry), error conditions, or rate limits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this lack of detail is a significant gap, though it doesn't contradict anything.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, efficient sentence in Japanese that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff or redundancy. It's front-loaded with the core action ('check') and resource ('authentication status'), making it easy to parse. Every word earns its place, achieving optimal conciseness.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (simple status check) but lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the check entails, what information is returned, or how to interpret results. For a tool that likely returns authentication state (e.g., valid/invalid, user details), more context is needed to be fully helpful.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, and it doesn't introduce any confusion. A baseline of 4 is appropriate as the description is adequate for a parameterless tool, though it could theoretically mention why no inputs are needed.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose as 'check current authentication status' (現在の認証状態を確認します), which is a specific verb ('check') and resource ('authentication status'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'authenticate', 'get_auth_url', and 'reset_auth' by focusing on status verification rather than initiation, URL retrieval, or resetting. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings, keeping it at 4 instead of 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when authentication status checking is needed (e.g., before operations requiring auth), what triggers its use, or how it differs from related tools like 'authenticate' or 'reset_auth'. Without such context, users must infer usage from the purpose alone.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/ambit1977/GTM-MCP'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server