List all Google Tag Manager containers in a specified account using the account name or ID to retrieve container details.
List every container in a GTM account.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| account | Yes | Name or ID of the GTM account (e.g. 'My Company' or '1234567'). |
| 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, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no behavioral context beyond restating the list operation—no mention of pagination, result size, or rate limits.
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 clear sentence with no wasted words, front-loading the operation and scope. It is appropriately sized for a simple list tool, though extremely terse.
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?
Given the output schema exists and annotations cover the safety profile, the description need not explain return values or permissions. It is complete enough for a simple list operation, though it could mention ordering or result handling.
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 100%, so the schema fully documents the required account parameter. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline score of 3 appropriate.
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 a specific verb (list) and resource (containers) with clear scope (every container in an account). It distinguishes from siblings like gtm_list_accounts and gtm_list_workspaces by targeting containers specifically, but does not explicitly name alternatives.
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 is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as gtm_list_workspaces or gtm_list_accounts. The description simply states what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.