Create a Google Tag Manager trigger with a full trigger object, using account, container, and workspace IDs to define when tags fire.
Create a GTM trigger (full trigger object).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| trigger | Yes | ||
| account_id | Yes | ||
| container_id | Yes | ||
| workspace_id | Yes | ||
| connection_id | No | ||
| session_token | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Create a GTM trigger', which implies mutation, but it does not explain side effects, required permissions, prerequisites like existing container/workspace, or what happens on failure. For a mutation tool with no annotation support, this is a significant gap.
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?
The description is a single focused sentence with no filler words. The phrase '(full trigger object)' is concise and front-loads the key distinction about the trigger shape. Every word earns its place.
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 a complex nested trigger object, four required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far too minimal. An agent has no information about the structure of the trigger object, how to obtain account/container/workspace IDs, or what the tool returns after creation. This is inadequate for reliable invocation.
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 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter semantics, but it only adds the vague phrase 'full trigger object'. This gives minimal meaning to the 'trigger' parameter and nothing to account_id, container_id, workspace_id, connection_id, or session_token beyond their self-explanatory names. The nested trigger object's accepted fields remain completely undocumented.
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 clear verb ('Create') and resource ('GTM trigger'), and the parenthetical 'full trigger object' signals that the operation creates a complete trigger rather than a partial update. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like gtm_update_trigger or gtm_list_triggers aside from the verb 'Create'.
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?
The description implies usage through the verb 'Create': use this tool when creating a new trigger rather than updating or listing triggers. It provides no explicit when/when-not guidance or mentions of alternative tools, but the intended context is recoverable from the tool name and sibling set.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.