google-tag-manager-mcp

Gtm User Permission

gtm_user_permission

Manage user access to Google Tag Manager accounts: list, create, update, or remove user permissions for account and container levels.

Instructions

Manage GTM account user permissions.

Actions:

list: parent='accounts/{id}'.
get: path='accounts/{id}/user_permissions/{permId}'.
create: parent='accounts/{id}', config={emailAddress, accountAccess, containerAccess}.
update: path='accounts/{id}/user_permissions/{permId}', config={...}.
remove: path='accounts/{id}/user_permissions/{permId}', 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

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It notes that remove is destructive and requires confirm=true, but it does not describe side effects of create/update (e.g., overwrites, merges), authentication requirements, rate limits, or any other behavioral nuances. This is a significant gap for a mutation-heavy tool with zero annotation coverage.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is well-structured with a clear purpose statement followed by bullet-point actions, each on one line with minimal verbosity. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids redundant phrasing, making it easy to scan and parse.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a multi-action tool with no annotations, the description covers the main actions and their parameter mappings, but it omits the 'params' parameter and lacks behavioral context. While an output schema exists (so return values are covered), the missing parameter semantics and behavioral details make it incomplete for an agent to use confidently in all scenarios.

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?

The description adds meaning to the schema's generic parameters by mapping each action to the required fields (e.g., parent for list, path for get, config for create). However, it leaves 'params' completely unexplained and the update config is only shown as '{...}', providing incomplete semantics. With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must compensate, and it does so only partially.

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 'Manage GTM account user permissions' and enumerates specific actions (list, get, create, update, remove) with API paths, making it distinct from sibling tools that handle other GTM entities. While 'manage' is somewhat broad, the action list adds precision.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies this tool is for user permission operations, and its uniqueness among siblings is evident from the resource focus. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over others, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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

Deploy Server