Update an existing GTM trigger by ID using account, container, workspace, and trigger fields. Modify trigger configuration to change firing rules without recreating it.
Update an existing GTM trigger by id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| trigger | Yes | ||
| account_id | Yes | ||
| trigger_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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without mentioning whether the update replaces or merges the trigger object, whether permissions are required, what side effects occur, or how the API responds. This is a significant gap for a mutating operation.
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 concise sentence with no filler or repetition. It front-loads the action and target, which is efficient, though it sacrifices useful context.
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?
This is a mutation tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and a nested free-form 'trigger' object. The one-sentence description provides only the basic intent and none of the context an agent needs to call it correctly: required scoping IDs, payload shape, side effects, or return behavior. It is inadequate for safe 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%, and the description only clarifies that the update happens 'by id' (trigger_id). It does not explain account_id, container_id, workspace_id, or the 'trigger' payload object, which is a free-form nested object with additionalProperties. The parameter names are partially self-explanatory, but the main update payload is left completely 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?
The description uses a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('existing GTM trigger by id'), clearly distinguishing it from creating a new trigger or updating other entity types like tags or variables. The phrase 'by id' also signals it targets an already-created trigger, which separates it from gtm_create_trigger.
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 for updating an existing trigger rather than creating one, but it gives no explicit alternatives or conditions. It does not mention when to prefer gtm_create_trigger, gtm_update_tag, or gtm_update_variable, so the guidance is only implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.