Retrieve full details of a specific Google Tag Manager container version, including every tag it contains. Use it to audit or review version configurations.
Full detail of one container version, including every tag it contains.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| account_id | No | ||
| version_id | Yes | ||
| 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?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the response contains full detail and that every tag is included, which adds some behavioral context. But it does not mention scoping behavior, auth requirements, whether it returns versions across containers, or any caveats beyond the tag inclusion.
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 12-word sentence that front-loads the key outcome and includes a concrete detail worth knowing (every tag it contains). There is no filler or repetition of the tool name.
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?
An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not required. Still, with no annotations and no parameter guidance, the description leaves some gaps: it does not clarify how the required version_id is scoped by the optional container_id/account_id, or how this endpoint relates to get_live_version, which is a likely alternative an agent would consider.
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 does not explain version_id semantics, the role of account_id and container_id, or how these parameters relate to selecting one container version. An agent must infer parameter meaning entirely from the schema's generic names.
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 what the tool does: it returns full detail of a single container version and explicitly mentions that tags are included. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like gtm_list_versions and gtm_get_live_version, though it does not explicitly name them as alternatives.
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 phrase "one container version" implies this is the detail-retrieval endpoint, useful after listing versions or when a specific version's full contents are needed. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over gtm_get_live_version or gtm_list_versions, and no when-not-to-use conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.