gtm_gtag_configConfigure Google tag (gtag) settings in Google Tag Manager using CRUD operations. Create, read, update, or delete gtag configurations without revert support.
Manage GTM Google tag (gtag) config. Standard CRUD (no revert).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | No | ||
| action | Yes | ||
| config | No | ||
| params | No | ||
| parent | No | ||
| confirm | No |
| 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?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It notes 'standard CRUD' and 'no revert', which are useful, but it fails to mention side effects, permission requirements, or that the confirm parameter likely gates destructive operations. Significant behavioral aspects are left implicit.
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?
The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the purpose and key limitation (no revert). It wastes no words and is easy to scan.
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?
Despite having an output schema, the tool has six parameters, no annotations, and a 0% schema description coverage. The description does not specify possible actions, parameter meanings, or the role of confirm. An agent would lack essential information to call it correctly.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides no explanation of any parameter (action, path, config, params, parent, confirm). The only implicit hint is that 'config' likely holds the configuration object, but even that is vague. The description adds essentially no value over the 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?
The description states it manages GTM Google tag (gtag) config and mentions standard CRUD operations, clearly identifying the resource and general behavior. It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying gtag config, though it doesn't enumerate exact actions or scope.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus other GTM resource tools. It does not mention any alternatives, conditions, or exclusions. The description only states what the tool does, not how to choose it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.