get_triggerFetch a specific trigger from a Google Tag Manager workspace using account, container, workspace, and trigger IDs.
Get one trigger from a workspace.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| account_id | Yes | Numeric Tag Manager account ID. | |
| trigger_id | Yes | Numeric trigger ID. | |
| container_id | Yes | Numeric container ID. | |
| workspace_id | Yes | Numeric workspace 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It only says 'Get one trigger from a workspace,' which implies a read operation but does not explicitly state read-only semantics, authorization requirements, possible side effects, or error behavior. This is minimal disclosure for a tool with no annotation support.
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, clear sentence with no filler or repetition. It is efficiently front-loaded with the action and resource, though it could have added a brief usage note without becoming verbose.
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?
Given that all parameters are fully documented in the schema and an output schema exists, the description need only state what the tool does and how it is scoped. It does that adequately for a simple read operation, though it omits any reference to alternative list tools or prerequisites.
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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage for all four parameters, so the description does not need to explain each parameter. The description adds no extra semantic detail beyond 'from a workspace,' matching the baseline for full schema coverage.
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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Get one trigger') and clearly scopes the operation to a workspace. The singular 'one' differentiates it from the sibling list_triggers, and the resource name distinguishes it from update/delete/revert trigger tools.
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 'Get one trigger' implies this is for retrieving a single trigger rather than listing triggers, but there is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus list_triggers or when not to use it. The usage intent is only implicit, not stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.