mcp-google-health

get_identity

Read-only

Retrieves the user's Google Health identity and numeric health user ID for authenticating or linking health data requests.

Instructions

Get the user's Google Health identity and numeric health user ID.

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": "get_identity"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 10, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds only that the return includes a Google Health identity plus a numeric health user ID; it says nothing about authentication requirements or whether an authorized session is assumed.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the key output (numeric health user ID) is placed where it is read first. Its brevity is close to the minimum, but nothing is wasted.

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?

With no output schema, the description must carry the return shape, and it only gestures at it ('identity' is undefined, and there is no indication of where the numeric ID sits in the response). For a simple zero-param tool this is adequate but leaves an agent guessing at the response structure.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly needs no parameter detail, and the schema is empty as expected.

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?

States a specific verb (Get) and resource (identity / numeric health user ID), which is more precise than the sibling get_profile or get_irn_profile. It does not explicitly say how it differs from get_profile, but the 'numeric health user ID' phrasing narrows the purpose.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. For a zero-parameter read it is broadly implied that an agent calls this to resolve the current user, but with siblings like get_profile and get_irn_profile present, the absence of routing guidance leaves real ambiguity.

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