List every Google Tag Manager account accessible to the authenticated user. Use to find the right account before managing tags, triggers, or variables.
List every GTM account accessible to the authenticated Google user.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety and idempotency profile is covered by structured data. The description adds only the auth-scoping detail that results are limited to the authenticated user; it says nothing about pagination or result size, which matters for a potentially long list.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word earns its place and the scope qualifier is included without padding.
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?
An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is unnecessary, and the annotations carry the safety profile. For a zero-parameter listing tool the description is essentially complete; only the absence of any routing hint toward the account/container/workspace hierarchy keeps it from a 5.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline of 4 applies. No parameter semantics are needed or missing.
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?
States a specific verb (list) plus the resource (GTM accounts) and the scope of the result set (accessible to the authenticated Google user). Distinguishable from siblings like gtm_list_containers and gtm_list_workspaces, though it does not explicitly note that accounts are the top-level resource containing those.
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 explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no reference to any sibling. An agent must infer that this is the discovery entry point for obtaining account IDs. Nothing is misleading, but nothing routes the agent either.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.