mcp-google-health

update_settings

Modify Google Health settings fields by naming each changed field in updateMask to apply targeted changes.

Instructions

Update settings fields. Name each changed field in updateMask.

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": {
      "settings": "<settings>",
      "updateMask": "<updateMask>"
    },
    "name": "update_settings"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`settings`	Yes	Settings fields. See describe_schema Settings.
`updateMask`	Yes	Comma-separated field paths to change.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 10, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds one genuinely behavioral point beyond that: the update is mask-scoped, implying fields not named in updateMask are left unchanged. It says nothing about permissions, whether omitted fields are preserved or cleared, or what happens on invalid field paths.

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 the action first and the key constraint second; nothing is redundant. It is arguably too terse rather than padded, so it loses only the top score for leaving so much unsaid.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, annotations covering safety, and fully described parameters, the description is close to sufficient but thin. It omits partial-update semantics for non-masked fields, the meaning of the openWorld flag in practice, and error handling, all of which an agent would want before writing.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented, which sets a baseline of 3. The description reinforces the mask requirement ("name each changed field") and hints that settings may contain more than what changes, but adds no format examples, path syntax, or behavior for unmasked fields beyond the schema text.

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?

"Update settings fields" gives a verb and resource, which separates it from the read-only sibling get_settings, but it names no scope or field categories and "fields" is left undefined. An agent knows it mutates settings, but not what settings are or how the tool differs from other update_* siblings beyond the resource noun.

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?

The only guidance is "Name each changed field in updateMask", which is an invocation instruction, not a when-to-use rule. There is no statement of prerequisites, no mention of when to use get_settings first or a describe_schema call to discover field names, and no exclusions.

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