Skip to main content
Glama
konkomaji

Google Marketing MCP

by konkomaji

gtm_update_entity

Modify existing Google Tag Manager entities by defining only the fields to change. Reads current settings, merges your updates, and replaces the entity, supporting JSON parameters and optional dry-run confirmation.

Instructions

Update an entity by merging updates into its current body.

The API replaces the whole object on update, so this reads the entity first and merges, rather than making you resend every field. Pass parameters as a plain dict inside updates to replace the parameter list; anything else is set as a top-level field.

Example updates: {"name": "New name", "paused": true}

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
confirmNo
updatesYes
entity_idYes
account_idNo
entity_typeYes
container_idNo
workspace_idNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the read-then-merge behavior, the special handling of the `parameters` key, and gives an example. It does not mention side effects like confirmation or reversibility, but the core destructive behavior (whole-object replacement) is transparent.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is moderately long but each sentence adds value: the core merge behavior, the API replacement rationale, the special parameter handling, and an example. It is front-loaded with the main purpose. The example is useful but could be considered slightly verbose – still, overall efficient for a complex update operation.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given 7 parameters (3 required) and an output schema, the description covers the merge behavior and the key `updates` parameter. However, it omits details about `confirm` (likely a confirmation flag) and the ID parameters, which might be clear from naming but still benefit from clarification. It doesn't explain edge cases or permission requirements. Since an output schema exists, return values are not needed, but the description could be more complete for a mutation tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

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. It explains `updates` in detail – as a dict to merge, with the special `parameters` sub-key. It also provides a concrete example. However, it doesn't explain `confirm`, `account_id`, `container_id`, `workspace_id`, or `entity_type` beyond their literal names. `entity_id` and `entity_type` are self-evident, but `confirm` is ambiguous and not addressed.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('an entity'), and details the merge semantics. It distinguishes this from create/delete siblings by clarifying it merges updates into the existing body. The extra explanation about the API replacing the whole object reinforces the unique behavior.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies when to use this tool: when you want to modify an entity without resending all fields, because the API replaces the whole object. It even gives an example updates dict. However, it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, though the sibling set suggests create/delete are for other operations. This is clear context without explicit exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools