Google Health MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Score Discussions Admin

Google Health MCP Capabilities

google_health_capabilities

Read-onlyIdempotent

Discover which Google Health data types AI agents can access, understand privacy limits, beta constraints, and follow the recommended workflow for using Google Health MCP.

Instructions

Explain supported Google Health data, privacy boundaries, beta status and recommended agent workflow.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`response_format`	No		markdown

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`links`	Yes
`status`	Yes
`creator`	Yes
`project`	Yes
`mcp_name`	Yes
`auth_model`	Yes
`unofficial`	Yes
`beta_notice`	Yes
`api_boundary`	Yes
`privacy_modes`	Yes
`client_aliases`	Yes
`mutating_tools`	No
`supported_data`	Yes
`contribution_paths`	Yes
`recommended_agent_flow`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv0.7.7Aug 29, 2026

changedInput schema / $schema

Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"

changedOutput schema / $schema

Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"

Changed2 schema fields changedv0.5.1Jun 29, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / auth_model / properties / write_scopes

Added value: +{
+  "items": {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / mutating_tools

Added value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "properties": {
+    "planned": {
+      "items": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "policy": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "scope_preset": {
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "policy",
+    "scope_preset",
+    "planned"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedv0.1.3May 7, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description's 'Explain' wording is consistent with those. The description adds context about privacy boundaries and beta status, but these are subject-matter details rather than additional behavioral disclosures like auth requirements or rate limits.

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?

A single sentence with no filler, front-loading the core action and then enumerating the specific facets covered. Every word earns its place.

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?

The description adequately summarizes the tool's content areas and the annotations cover its safety profile, while an output schema exists for return values. However, it lacks guidance for distinguishing this overview tool from closely related siblings and does not mention the response_format parameter, leaving some selection ambiguity.

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?

The only parameter, response_format, is self-documenting through its enum ('markdown'/'json') and default value, so the schema carries the essential meaning even though prose descriptions are absent. The description does not mention the parameter, but for this trivial optional parameter the omission is acceptable.

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?

The description uses a specific verb, 'Explain,' and names the resource: supported Google Health data, privacy boundaries, beta status, and recommended agent workflow. This clearly states the tool's scope and differentiates it from more specific sibling tools like data_inventory, privacy_audit, and quickstart.

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 description does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives such as google_health_data_inventory, google_health_privacy_audit, or google_health_quickstart. The phrase 'recommended agent workflow' only implies an orientation use case, but there is no direct when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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