mcp-google-health

describe_schema

Read-only

Returns the JSON schema for a Google Health data type or API schema, helping you inspect required fields and structure before querying or writing data.

Instructions

Show the JSON schema of a data type payload (such as weight or sleep) or an API schema (such as Profile, Settings, PairedDevice, DataPoint).

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

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

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes	Data type slug or schema name.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 10, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the return value is a JSON schema and that both data-type payloads and API objects are addressable, but it says nothing about error behavior for invalid slugs or whether the schema is versioned.

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?

One compact sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with the examples doing the disambiguation work. No filler.

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?

For a one-parameter read-only schema lookup with no output schema, the definition covers the input domain well enough to call it correctly. A note on invalid-name behavior is the only notable omission.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The single `name` parameter is fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3; the description goes beyond it by supplying concrete example values for a free-form string (weight/sleep as data type slugs, Profile/Settings as API schema names). That materially reduces the chance of passing the wrong identifier form.

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

Purpose4/5

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

Specific verb and resource: "Show the JSON schema of a data type payload ... or an API schema", and it enumerates concrete examples (weight, sleep; Profile, Settings, PairedDevice, DataPoint). This clearly separates it from siblings like get_profile or get_settings that return actual values rather than schema definitions, though the contrast is by implication rather than stated.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied by the two example categories - call it when you need the structure of a payload or API object before reading or writing. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over list_data_types or the get_* siblings, and no guidance on what happens for an unknown name.

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