Google Tag Manager MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v3.0.3
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool is named after a distinct GTM entity (account, container, workspace, folder, tag, trigger, variable, built-in variable), making it clear which resource to target. Even though individual tools handle multiple operations via an 'action' parameter, the resource types are mutually exclusive and unambiguous.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent snake_case pattern of 'gtm_' plus a noun, with no mixed conventions or vague verbs. The naming is uniform and predictable, matching the style of the calibration high example.
Tool Count5/5
With 8 tools covering the primary GTM resource types, the count is well-scoped for the domain. Each tool earns its place, and the set is neither too thin nor too heavy for a GTM-focused server.
Completeness4/5
The tools provide full CRUD/lifecycle coverage for containers, workspaces, tags, triggers, and variables, plus account management and built-in variable control. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no explicit create/delete for accounts, no version or environment management), but core workflows are covered without dead ends.
Average 3.1/5 across 8 of 8 tools scored. Lowest: 2.4/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is failing
This repository is licensed under Apache 2.0.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden, but it only says 'manages' without disclosing destructive potential, permissions, or operation outcomes. This is minimal behavioral transparency.
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 a single sentence and front-loaded, but it's under-specified. It's concise but lacks necessary detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has an action enum with five operations and a nested config object, yet the description provides no context on operation behavior, when to use each action, or expected results. The schema is rich but the description doesn't complement it.
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 100%, and the description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema already documents. Baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool 'manages' GTM folders, which is a generic verb and doesn't specify the supported operations (get, list, create, update, delete) that are visible in the schema. It does identify the resource and distinguishes from sibling tools by resource type, but lacks operational specificity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like gtm_tag or gtm_trigger. The description focuses only on what folders are for, not how to perform operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description does not disclose the effects of each operation, such as the destructive nature of delete or permission requirements for create/update. With no annotations to compensate, an agent cannot infer the safety profile or expected behavior beyond the action names.
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 one-sentence description is efficiently front-loaded with the tool's purpose, but it sacrifices explanatory depth. It contains no fluff, so it earns a 4 for conciseness, though it is under-informative.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a multi-action tool with nested config objects and no output schema or annotations, this description is insufficient. It lacks operation-specific details, prerequisites, return values, and any guidance on config structure.
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?
The schema already documents all parameters with descriptions and enum values, and the description provides no additional semantic context—it just repeats the action list. Baseline 3 applies because schema coverage is 100%.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description identifies the tool as handling container operations and enumerates the supported actions (get, list, create, update, delete). This is clearer than a tautology but remains generic with the weak verb 'performs' and lacks specific details about the container resource scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given about when to select this tool over sibling tools like gtm_account or gtm_workspace, nor which action to choose for a given scenario. The description simply lists operations without any contextual recommendations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it only lists operations without disclosing side effects, permissions, or other behavioral traits. The mention of 'delete' implies destructive behavior, but no context is given.
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 a single concise sentence, efficient and front-loaded. The opening phrase 'Performs tag operations' is somewhat redundant with the name, but the listing of operations adds value without wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a multi-action dispatcher with 6 parameters and a nested config object, the description is under-specified. It omits action-specific parameter requirements, output behavior, and any caveats, making it insufficient for reliable invocation without schema inference.
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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond restating the action enum, which overlaps with the schema's action property.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description identifies the resource (tag) and lists the operations (get, list, create, update, delete), making the purpose clear. It doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like gtm_trigger or gtm_variable, but the resource name suffices to differentiate.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any indication of which action to choose for common scenarios. The schema offers an enum of actions, but the description fails to explain use cases or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states that it performs trigger operations; it does not mention side effects (e.g., delete is destructive), required parameters per operation, return values, or any other behavioral context. This is a significant gap.
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 a single sentence with a clear list of operations, making it concise and front-loaded. However, it is somewhat sparse for a multi-action tool, but it earns a high score for being free of fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has 6 parameters, nested config objects, and multiple actions, yet the description provides no operational guidance (e.g., which parameters apply to which action) or return value details. With no output schema and minimal description, the agent lacks essential context for correct invocation.
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?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with each parameter already documented. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides. It merely repeats the action enum values, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 clearly identifies the resource ('trigger') and enumerates the specific operations (get, list, create, update, delete). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like gtm_tag or gtm_variable by naming the trigger resource explicitly.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only lists operations without any context about prerequisites, preferred scenarios, or exclusions. The sibling tools are not referenced, so an agent receives no decision hints.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It lists actions but does not mention that delete is destructive, update modifies state, or any permission or authorization requirements. This is a significant gap for a tool that includes mutation actions.
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 a single sentence that is concise and free of filler. It front-loads the purpose (performs workspace operations) and enumerates the supported actions efficiently. However, it is under-specified in terms of detail, which limits it slightly from a perfect score.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 5 parameters (including a nested config object), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is notably incomplete. It fails to explain what config contains, the difference between get and list, return values, error handling, or any side effects. The tool complexity demands more than a one-line summary.
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 100%, as all five parameters have descriptions (action, config, accountId, containerId, workspaceId). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond reiterating the action list; the schema already documents parameter purposes, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states that this tool performs workspace operations with a list of specific actions (get, list, create, update, delete), which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from sibling tools via the 'workspace' resource, though it doesn't elaborate on what a workspace is or the context of these operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for workspace CRUD operations but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. Sibling tool names clearly indicate different resources, but the description does not state 'use this for workspace management' or mention any prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does 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. It lists mutating operations (create, update, delete) which signals potential side effects, but it does not elaborate on consequences like permanent deletion, required permissions, or idempotency. This lack of depth leaves critical safety information undocumented.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that immediately identifies the tool's purpose and lists all actions. Every word is used efficiently, with no fluff or repetition of schema fields.
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?
The tool has 6 parameters and no output schema, but the description is minimal. It communicates the core purpose and action list but omits guidance on when each action is appropriate, how config relates to create/update, or what the response looks like. Given the complexity, more detail would be expected, though the schema covers parameter definitions comprehensively.
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 100%, so the schema fully documents all parameters. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what is already in the schema, matching the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage. It does not clarify inter-parameter dependencies or action-specific requirements.
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 clearly states the tool performs variable operations and explicitly enumerates the supported actions (get, list, create, update, delete). This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like gtm_tag or gtm_trigger, which handle different GTM entities.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for GTM variable management but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings or provide exclusions. There is no mention of alternatives or scenarios where another tool would be more appropriate, leaving the agent to infer 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.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only lists the operations without disclosing behavior such as side effects of update, required permissions, response format, or how accountId is used across actions. This is a significant gap for a multi-action tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that is front-loaded with the tool's purpose and operation list. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's scope, with no unnecessary detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With three operations, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too brief. It does not explain what get or list return, how update behaves, or how accountId and config are used per action, leaving an agent without enough context to invoke the tool correctly.
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?
The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no new parameter meaning beyond reiterating the action parameter, which is already documented in the schema.
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 clearly states the tool performs all account-related operations (get, list, update), specifying a verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like gtm_container or gtm_workspace, which target other GTM resources.
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 provides clear context that this tool is for any account-related operation, implying it is the go-to for account actions. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, though the sibling list makes the distinction implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that create enables and delete disables, which is helpful. However, it does not mention return values, permissions, idempotency, or side effects. This is minimal viable transparency but not particularly rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently packs the resource, operations, and semantic nuances (enable/disable). No unnecessary words or redundancy.
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?
The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description should cover more. It covers the operations but omits return value expectations, list behavior, and any prerequisites or caveats. For a simple CRUD tool, this is adequate but not comprehensive.
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 100%, and all parameters have descriptions. The description itself adds little beyond the schema—it only restates that type is needed for create/delete, which is already captured. The baseline 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 clearly states the tool manages GTM built-in variables and enumerates the exact operations (list, create/enable, delete/disable). It explicitly mentions 'built-in variables', which distinguishes it from sibling gtm_variable. The verb 'manages' plus specific actions makes the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for built-in variables only, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or provide when-to-use guidance. It does clarify that create means enable and delete means disable, which gives some context for action selection, but no explicit exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![gtm-mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/metkamedia/gtm-mcp-server/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/metkamedia/gtm-mcp-server)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![gtm-mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/metkamedia/gtm-mcp-server/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/metkamedia/gtm-mcp-server)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/metkamedia/gtm-mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server