get_containerFetch a specific Google Tag Manager container by supplying its numeric account ID and container ID. Returns the container's settings, tags, and metadata.
Get one Tag Manager container.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| account_id | Yes | Numeric Tag Manager account ID. | |
| container_id | Yes | Numeric container ID. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The verb 'Get' clearly indicates a read-only operation, which is a key behavioral trait. However, with no annotations, the description does not disclose error behavior, permission requirements, or that it returns the full container entity, leaving some burden unmet.
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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. 'Get one Tag Manager container' efficiently captures the core operation and scope.
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?
Despite having an output schema and a simple two-parameter input, the description lacks usage context and behavioral warnings. Given the large sibling set and no annotations, an agent cannot tell when to choose this over lookup_container or get_container_snippet.
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 100%, with both account_id and container_id described in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 'Get one Tag Manager container' states a specific verb (Get) and a singular resource (one Tag Manager container), which distinguishes it from list_containers. However, it does not clarify how it differs from lookup_container or summarize_container, so sibling differentiation is incomplete.
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?
There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it is appropriate for retrieving a single container by ID or that list_containers should be used for enumeration.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.