get_workspaceFetch a specific Google Tag Manager workspace using account, container, and workspace IDs. Get workspace details needed for managing tags, triggers, and variables.
Get one workspace.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| account_id | Yes | Numeric Tag Manager account 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 full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. 'Get one workspace' only restates the tool name and implies retrieval; it says nothing about permissions, error behavior, side effects, or what the returned workspace entity contains.
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 one short sentence with no filler and the key action is front-loaded. It is concise, though the conciseness comes at the cost of useful contextual information.
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?
The input schema fully documents parameters and an output schema exists, so basic invocation is possible. However, with no annotations and no mention of how this relates to list_workspaces or get_workspace_status, the description is only minimally complete for an agent selecting among many workspace-related tools.
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%: all three ID parameters are individually documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, which matches the baseline for fully covered schemas.
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 the specific verb 'Get' with a single resource ('one workspace'), so an agent can infer it is a fetch-by-identifier operation. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like list_workspaces or get_workspace_status beyond the singular wording.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_workspaces or get_workspace_status. An agent is left to infer the intended use from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.