Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
GHB MCP

GHB MCP

by gutohbarbosa-coder
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

gtm_read

Read-only

Read authorized Google Tag Manager containers, workspaces, status, tags, triggers, variables, folders, and versions by path to inspect GTM configuration.

Instructions

Lê container, workspaces, status, tags, triggers, variáveis, pastas e versões autorizados.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "gtm_read"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYes
pageTokenNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0-rc.2

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a real behavioral detail — 'autorizados' indicates only resources the caller is authorized to see are returned — but says nothing about pagination despite exposing a pageToken.

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?

A single efficient sentence with the verb front-loaded. Nothing is padded, though the noun-list style trades brevity for precision about scope.

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

Completeness2/5

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

With no output schema and 0% parameter documentation, the description should explain the required 'path' format and how pagination works — it does neither. An agent can guess the tool's domain but not how to construct a valid call.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% on both parameters, so the description carries the full burden and fails it: 'path' (the GTM container/entity path, required, ≤250 chars) and 'pageToken' receive no explanation of format or purpose. The resource list hints at what path may select, but pagination semantics are completely undocumented.

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 ('Lê') plus an enumerated set of GTM resources (container, workspaces, tags, triggers, variables, folders, versions), so the domain and operation are unambiguous. It stops short of distinguishing itself from siblings (ga4_admin_read, google_ads_search), though those clearly target different products.

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: the resource list suggests reading GTM configuration entities, but there is no statement of when to choose this over the read siblings or any preconditions. No exclusions or alternatives are named.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools