Google Tag Manager MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Revert Tag

revert_tag

Undo a tag's uncommitted changes in a workspace, restoring it to the original container version without affecting other modifications.

Instructions

Undo a workspace's changes to one tag.

Restores the tag to the state of the container version the workspace was branched from, leaving the workspace's other changes alone.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`tag_id`	Yes	Numeric tag ID.
`account_id`	Yes	Numeric Tag Manager account ID.
`fingerprint`	No	Fingerprint from a previous read.
`container_id`	Yes	Numeric container ID.
`workspace_id`	Yes	Numeric workspace ID.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 20, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explains that only the specified tag is restored and explicitly states that the workspace's other changes remain untouched. This is a useful, non-obvious behavioral guarantee beyond the tool name alone.

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?

Two concise sentences with no filler. The main action is front-loaded, and the follow-up sentence explains the crucial scoping behavior. Everything present earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has an output schema and fully described parameters, the description adequately covers the operation's behavior and scope. It could mention prerequisites like requiring prior workspace changes, but the core semantics are complete enough for an agent to invoke it 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond contextualizing the revert behavior, which keeps this at the baseline score.

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 action: 'Undo a workspace's changes to one tag.' It names the specific resource (tag) and the scoped operation (workspace-level revert), and the second sentence adds precise restoration semantics distinguishing it from other tag operations.

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 conveys clear context for when to use it: when a workspace changed a tag and those changes need to be undone back to the branch point. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the semantics are distinct enough to imply appropriate usage.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server