Google Health MCP — Remote

Google Health Cache Status

google_health_cache_status

Read-onlyIdempotent

Reports whether authenticated payload caching is disabled and returns retained configuration without inspecting existing SQLite entries.

Instructions

Report disabled authenticated payload caching and retained configuration. Existing SQLite entries are preserved and not inspected.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "google_health_cache_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`response_format`	No		markdown

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`path`	Yes
`reason`	No
`enabled`	Yes
`entries`	No
`configured`	No
`http_cache`	No
`newest_cached_at`	No
`entries_inspected`	No
`existing_entries_preserved`	No
`authenticated_requests_bypass`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.8.0Nov 5, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real context beyond them by stating that existing SQLite entries are preserved and deliberately not inspected, which tells the agent this call has no side effects on stored cache data. Return format need not be covered because an output schema exists.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences with no filler, and the scope statement about preserved entries is placed directly after the purpose. The only deduction is for the awkward noun pile-up in the first sentence, which costs clarity without adding length.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a simple read-only status tool with one optional enum parameter and an output schema, the definition covers purpose and non-destructiveness adequately. It does not explain why caching would be disabled, what "retained configuration" contains, or when an agent should act on the result, leaving a modest gap.

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 0%, but there is only one optional parameter, response_format, constrained to a markdown/json enum with a default. The description says nothing about output format selection, yet the enum makes the choice largely self-explanatory. Baseline 3 fits this low-complexity single-parameter case.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

"Report ... authenticated payload caching and retained configuration" names a resource and an action, so the general domain is inferable. However, the phrasing "disabled authenticated payload caching" is convoluted enough that an agent must work to parse what is actually reported, and nothing distinguishes this from nearby status tools such as google_health_connection_status.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no sibling tool is named as an alternative. The agent must guess whether to call this before or instead of google_health_connection_status or google_health_capabilities.

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