Create a Google Tag Manager container version from a workspace without publishing, preserving changes for later review.
Create a GTM container version from a workspace (does NOT publish).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | ||
| 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, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose one meaningful trait: the operation does NOT publish, preventing the agent from assuming creation implies deployment. But it omits other behaviors an agent would want to know — what the version contains (a snapshot of tags/triggers/variables), whether repeated calls create duplicate versions, auth/connection expectations, or what is returned.
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 sentence with zero filler: the verb and resource are front-loaded, the source is stated, and the critical non-publishing qualifier is tucked in as a high-value parenthetical. 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?
For a 6-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is adequate but thin. It establishes the core operation, yet leaves out the GTM workflow context (a version is a workspace snapshot and a prerequisite to publishing), response contents, and behavior on repeated calls. The sibling list partly compensates by revealing gtm_publish_version exists.
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 documenting the 6 parameters, but it barely does. 'from a workspace' adds a little meaning to workspace_id, and the tool name hints at 'name', yet account_id, container_id, connection_id, and session_token receive no explanation whatsoever. The description falls well short of carrying the parameter-documentation burden.
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 ('Create'), a precise resource ('GTM container version'), and the source ('from a workspace'). The parenthetical '(does NOT publish)' actively distinguishes it from the sibling gtm_publish_version, so an agent can tell them apart without opening either schema.
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 explicit '(does NOT publish)' exclusion tells the agent when not to use this tool (when publishing is desired) and implies the publish workflow is handled elsewhere, with gtm_publish_version present in the sibling list. However, it never names the alternative explicitly or states a positive condition like 'use this to snapshot workspace changes before publishing.'
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.