List safe Google connection health and operation policy fields.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| connection_context | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ok | No | ||
| code | No | ||
| error | No | ||
| needs | No | ||
| total | No | ||
| reason | No | ||
| retryable | No | ||
| error_code | No | ||
| connections | No | ||
| next_action | No | ||
| support_ref | No | ||
| invalid_fields | No | ||
| rejected_paths | No | ||
| origin_support_ref | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "properties": {
+ "code": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "connections": {
+ "items": {
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "properties": {
+ "allow_create": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "boolean"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ]
+ },
+ "allow_decision": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "boolean"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ]
+ },
+ "allow_pull": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "boolean"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ]
+ },
+ "connected_at": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ]
+ },
+ "connection_ref": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "credential_status": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ]
+ },
+ "customer_count": {
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ "google_email": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ]
+ },
+ "last_auth_error_at": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ]
+ },
+ "last_auth_error_code": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ]
+ },
+ "last_success_at": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "error": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "properties": {
+ "code": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "details": {
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "properties": {},
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "message": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "retryable": {
+ "type": "boolean"
+ },
+ "support_ref": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ }
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ]
+ },
+ "error_code": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "invalid_fields": {
+ "items": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "needs": {
+ "items": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "next_action": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "properties": {},
+ "type": "object"
+ }
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ]
+ },
+ "ok": {
+ "type": "boolean"
+ },
+ "origin_support_ref": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "reason": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "rejected_paths": {
+ "items": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "retryable": {
+ "type": "boolean"
+ },
+ "support_ref": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "total": {
+ "type": "integer"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+}Input schema / properties / connection_contextAdded value: +{
+ "pattern": "^mctx_v1_[0-9a-f]{64}$",
+ "type": "string"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is largely covered. The only added context is the word 'safe', which is too vague to clarify whether fields are redacted, truncated, or simply non-sensitive; with an output schema present, return shape needn't be described, but the description still adds minimal behavioral value.
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 short sentence that is front-loaded and wastes no space, but that brevity comes at the cost of under-specification rather than tight, information-dense wording.
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 read-only annotations and the presence of an output schema cover safety and return shape, so the description needn't explain those. Still, it does not clarify what 'connection health and operation policy fields' actually comprises or how connection_context affects the result, leaving an agent with real ambiguity about what it will get.
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 single parameter connection_context has 0% schema description coverage (only a regex pattern), yet the description never mentions it, its purpose, or whether it is needed to scope the listing. For a one-parameter tool with an undocumented param, the description fails to compensate.
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?
States a verb (List) and a resource area (Google connection health and operation policy fields), which does distinguish it from the mutating sibling google_ads_connection_permissions_set. However, 'safe ... fields' is ambiguous phrasing that does not tell an agent concretely what is returned or why the fields are 'safe', leaving the purpose only loosely defined.
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 statement of when to use this versus alternatives (e.g., account listing or permissions setting), nor any prerequisites such as needing a connection_context. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.