Generate a paste-ready Google Tag Manager container snippet, including the head script and noscript iframe, for the specified account and container IDs.
The install snippet for a web container: the script and the
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| account_id | No | ||
| container_id | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output composition but does not state whether the operation is read-only, what happens with null/default account_id or container_id, or whether any side effects occur.
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 compact sentence with no wasted words. The key output details are front-loaded, and the structure makes the tool's purpose immediately readable.
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 two nullable parameters and no annotations, the description is too thin to fully support correct invocation. It omits how to supply or obtain account_id and container_id and what the output schema expects, leaving an agent to guess at call semantics.
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 adds no meaning for account_id or container_id. The names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description does not explain how these IDs are used, why they are optional, or what the default null behavior is.
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 clearly identifies the tool's resource: the GTM web container install snippet composed of a <head> script and <body> noscript iframe, ready to paste. It distinguishes itself from sibling GTM tools by naming a unique output artifact, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'generates'.
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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. 'Ready to paste' implies an installation context, but prerequisites, such as needing a container ID or where to obtain it, are not stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.