Google Tag Manager MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Update Version

update_version

Update a Google Tag Manager container version's name or notes without altering its frozen tag, trigger, or variable configuration.

Instructions

Update a container version's name or notes.

Only the metadata is editable. A version's entities are a frozen snapshot; to change them, edit a workspace and create a new version.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`account_id`	Yes	Numeric Tag Manager account ID.
`version_id`	Yes	Numeric container version ID.
`fingerprint`	No	Fingerprint from a previous read. When given, the update fails if the version changed in the meantime.
`container_id`	Yes	Numeric container ID.
`container_version`	Yes	ContainerVersion resource, e.g. {"name": "Release 2026-09", "notes": "Adds consent mode"}.

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

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavioral constraint that entities are frozen, but it doesn't mention other behaviors like the fingerprint's optimistic concurrency or potential side effects. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 sentences with no waste. The action is front-loaded, and the constraint is stated immediately after. Every sentence 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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation. The description covers the core constraint and usage. The fingerprint parameter is documented in the schema, so its purpose is clear. The description is complete for a metadata-update tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds marginal value by specifying which fields (name, notes) are editable, but this is largely redundant with the schema's example. It does not deepen understanding beyond the schema.

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 states a specific action (update), a resource (container version), and the editable fields (name or notes). It also clarifies that only metadata is editable, distinguishing it from create/delete/publish operations on versions.

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?

It explicitly says when to use this tool (to update metadata) and when not to (to change entities, edit a workspace and create a new version). While it doesn't name specific sibling tools, the rule is clear and actionable.

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

Deploy Server