Skip to main content
Glama
dienhokhanh

gtm-mcp-server

by dienhokhanh

gtm_get_tag

Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetch one Google Tag Manager tag by ID from a workspace draft to review or verify its settings.

Instructions

Get one tag by ID from a workspace draft.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tagIdYes
accountYesName or ID of the GTM account (e.g. 'My Company' or '1234567').
containerYesName, GTM container ID (publicId, e.g. GTM-XXXX), or internal container ID.
workspaceNoWorkspace name or ID. Omit only for reads to use Default Workspace.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds one useful behavioral detail - that the read targets draft workspace state rather than a published container - but says nothing about rate limits, auth, or pagination.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words; the verb, resource, and scoping qualifier all appear immediately.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With an output schema covering return values and annotations covering the safety profile, the description only needs to disambiguate from list/other getter tools, which it does. It could be more complete by clarifying the default-workspace fallback for reads, but it is largely sufficient.

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 coverage is 75%, so account, container, and workspace are already documented in the schema, and the output schema handles returns. 'By ID' loosely maps to tagId (which lacks a schema description) and 'workspace draft' hints at the optional workspace parameter, but no additional format or syntax detail is added.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get one tag by ID') plus scope ('from a workspace draft'), which clearly separates it from gtm_list_tags. It does not name the sibling tools explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: fetch a single tag when its ID is known, as opposed to gtm_list_tags for enumeration. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use statement or named alternative.

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