google-tag-manager-mcp

Gtm Environment

gtm_environment

Create, list, update, delete, and reauthorize Google Tag Manager environments to control publishing and preview workflows.

Instructions

Manage GTM environments. Standard CRUD (list/create: parent=''; get/update/remove: path='/environments/{id}') plus:

reauthorize: path='/environments/{id}', confirm=true. (destructive)

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`path`	No
`action`	Yes
`config`	No
`params`	No
`parent`	No
`confirm`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 21, 2026

TDQS

B3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden, and it does flag reauthorize as destructive and confirm-gated. However, it does not disclose side effects of remove/update, permission needs, or what reauthorize actually changes, so coverage is only partial.

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 compact: two sentences with a bullet, front-loading the resource and action list, with no filler. The dense shorthand is still readable and every part contributes useful information.

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?

Action values and path conventions are covered, and an output schema exists so return-value documentation is not needed. However, config and params semantics are absent, and for a mutation-capable tool with no annotations this leaves the agent guessing about payloads and side effects.

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

Parameters2/5

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

The description adds meaningful mappings for action, parent, path, and confirm, which the bare schema does not explain. But config and params are completely undocumented, and with 0% schema description coverage this leaves a substantial semantic gap.

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 identifies the resource as GTM environments and enumerates specific CRUD actions plus reauthorize, with path patterns. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling GTM tools, but the resource name and action list make the purpose unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool over sibling tools or when to prefer specific actions. The path and confirm details are parameter guidance rather than usage context, and there are no exclusions or alternatives mentioned.

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

Deploy Server