Lists all variables in a specified GTM workspace by providing account, container, and workspace IDs, enabling quick review of existing configurations for audits or edits.
List variables in a GTM workspace.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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. The verb 'List' implies a read-only operation, but nothing is disclosed about pagination, response shape, whether the listing is restricted to the specified workspace, or how deleted or uncommitted variables are treated. This is a gap rather than a contradiction since no annotations exist.
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 wasted words. It is efficiently concise, although its brevity contributes to gaps in behavioral and parameter coverage.
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 tool with 5 parameters, zero schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, a single sentence is insufficient. The agent learns only that variables are listed, but gets no parameter semantics, return structure, or behavioral details, while the large sibling set (~20 tools) creates meaningful selection pressure.
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 undocumented parameters but does not. Parameter names like account_id, container_id, and workspace_id are partially self-explanatory, yet connection_id and session_token remain unexplained, and no format or relationship details are given for any parameter.
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 ('variables') scoped to a GTM workspace. The resource name distinguishes it from sibling list tools targeting accounts, containers, workspaces, tags, triggers, and versions, though no alternative is explicitly named.
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. There are no exclusions, no conditions, and no mention of sibling tools like gtm_list_tags or gtm_list_triggers, so the agent must infer usage solely from the resource name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.