Skip to main content
Glama
ambit1977

Google Tag Manager MCP Server

by ambit1977

list_triggers

Retrieve all triggers from a Google Tag Manager workspace to manage event-based tag firing rules. Specify account, container, and workspace IDs to access trigger configurations.

Instructions

指定されたワークスペースのトリガー一覧を取得します

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
accountIdYesアカウントID
containerIdYesコンテナID
workspaceIdYesワークスペースID

Implementation Reference

  • Schema definition including name, description, and input schema for the list_triggers MCP tool in the ListTools response.
      name: 'list_triggers',
      description: '指定されたワークスペースのトリガー一覧を取得します',
      inputSchema: {
        type: 'object',
        properties: {
          accountId: {
            type: 'string',
            description: 'アカウントID',
          },
          containerId: {
            type: 'string',
            description: 'コンテナID',
          },
          workspaceId: {
            type: 'string',
            description: 'ワークスペースID',
          },
        },
        required: ['accountId', 'containerId', 'workspaceId'],
      },
    },
  • MCP tool handler for list_triggers that delegates to GTMClient.listTriggers and formats the response as JSON text content.
    case 'list_triggers':
      return {
        content: [
          {
            type: 'text',
            text: JSON.stringify(
              await this.gtmClient.listTriggers(
                args.accountId,
                args.containerId,
                args.workspaceId
              ),
              null,
              2
            ),
          },
        ],
      };
  • Core implementation in GTMClient that calls the Google Tag Manager API to list triggers in the specified workspace.
    async listTriggers(accountId, containerId, workspaceId) {
      await this.ensureAuth();
      const response = await this.tagmanager.accounts.containers.workspaces.triggers.list({
        parent: `accounts/${accountId}/containers/${containerId}/workspaces/${workspaceId}`
      });
      return response.data.trigger || [];
    }
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but lacks behavioral details. It states it retrieves a list but doesn't disclose pagination, sorting, rate limits, permissions needed, or response format. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond its basic purpose.

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 redundancy. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse. No unnecessary words or structural issues are present.

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?

For a tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but misses critical context: behavioral traits (e.g., read-only nature implied but not stated), output details, and usage guidelines. Given the complexity and lack of structured data, more information is needed for effective agent use.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, with all three parameters (accountId, containerId, workspaceId) documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond implying workspace context. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles parameter documentation adequately, but the description doesn't enhance understanding of parameter relationships or usage.

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 action ('取得します' - retrieve) and resource ('トリガー一覧' - list of triggers) with scope ('指定されたワークスペース' - specified workspace). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_trigger' (singular) and 'create_trigger' by focusing on listing multiple triggers. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list tools like 'list_tags' or 'list_variables' beyond the resource type.

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 prerequisites (e.g., authentication), compare with siblings like 'get_trigger' for single trigger retrieval, or specify use cases (e.g., browsing vs. detailed inspection). The agent must infer usage from context 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