get_zoneFetch a specific zone from a Google Tag Manager workspace using account, container, workspace, and zone IDs.
Get one zone from a workspace.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| zone_id | Yes | Numeric zone ID. | |
| 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 burden of behavioral disclosure, yet it only restates the retrieval action. It does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, what happens if the zone is not found, or any other behavioral traits. The presence of an output schema mitigates the return-value gap but not the absent safety/error context.
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?
A single six-word sentence that is perfectly sized for a simple get operation. It front-loads the verb and resource, contains no filler, and every word contributes to the meaning.
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?
For a low-complexity single-resource get with a fully documented input schema and an output schema present, the description covers the core operation adequately. It could be more complete by naming list_zones as the alternative for fetching multiple zones, but an agent has enough information to invoke this tool correctly.
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%, and all four required parameters are documented as numeric IDs. The description itself adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 applies because the schema fully handles parameter semantics.
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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get one zone from a workspace.' It is clear and unambiguous, and it semantically distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_zones by emphasizing a single zone. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with alternative sibling operations.
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 'one zone' implies this is the tool to use when retrieving a single zone, giving a basic usage signal. There is no explicit guidance about when not to use it, no mention of list_zones as the multi-zone alternative, and no stated prerequisites such as the zone belonging to the given workspace.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.