Retrieve a single Google Tag Manager container's configuration and metadata by providing account and container IDs. Makes container details accessible for analysis or integration.
Get a single GTM container's details.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| account_id | Yes | ||
| container_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?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It only says 'Get', implying a read operation, but does not mention auth requirements, response format, error behavior, or side effects. No contradiction exists, but the description adds little beyond the action itself.
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 adds meaning: 'single' scopes the operation, 'details' indicates the return, and 'GTM container' names the resource.
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?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description is too thin: it omits return format, authentication context for connection_id/session_token, and error conditions. It is minimally viable for a simple call but not complete enough for an agent to invoke confidently in all cases.
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 needed to compensate by explaining the parameters, but it does not. account_id and container_id are inferable from the operation, yet connection_id and session_token are not explained, leaving their roles ambiguous.
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 action (get) and resource (a single GTM container's details). The word 'single' distinguishes it from sibling listing tools like gtm_list_containers, and 'details' clarifies the return scope.
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_containers or gtm_get_version. The description implies it is for retrieving one container, but it does not state selection criteria, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.