Google Health MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Score Discussions Admin

Google Health Connection Status

google_health_connection_status

Read-onlyIdempotent

Check local Google Health config, token file, Node version, privacy mode, cache readiness, and optional MCP client readiness without calling Google APIs or exposing secrets.

Instructions

Check local Google Health config, token file, Node version, privacy mode, cache readiness and optional MCP client readiness without calling Google APIs or exposing secrets.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`client`	No		generic
`response_format`	No		markdown

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Default
`ok`	Yes
`node`	Yes
`cache`	Yes
`oauth`	Yes
`token`	Yes
`client`	No	generic
`config`	Yes
`headless`	Yes
`next_steps`	Yes
`missing_env`	Yes
`privacy_mode`	Yes
`redirect_uri`	No
`required_env`	Yes
`client_checks`	No
`automatic_auth_supported`	Yes
`ready_for_google_health_api`	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"

Addedv0.7.3Aug 4, 2026
Removedv0.5.3Jul 17, 2026

Changed2 schema fields changedv0.5.1Jun 29, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / oauth / properties / nutrition_write_ready
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
```

changedOutput schema / properties / oauth / required

Previous value: -[
-  "recommended_scopes",
-  "granted_scopes",
-  "missing_recommended_scopes",
-  "scope_status",
-  "activity_tools_ready",
-  "profile_tools_ready"
-]New value: +[
+  "recommended_scopes",
+  "granted_scopes",
+  "missing_recommended_scopes",
+  "scope_status",
+  "activity_tools_ready",
+  "profile_tools_ready",
+  "nutrition_write_ready"
+]

First observedv0.1.3May 7, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive hints. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond those annotations by promising no Google API calls and no secret exposure, and by listing exactly what is inspected, which is valuable for an agent deciding whether invocation is safe.

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?

The entire description is one dense, well-structured sentence with the action verb, targets, and constraints. It front-loads the purpose and includes all essential scope information without any filler or repetition.

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 simple read-only status tool with an output schema and rich annotations, the description covers purpose, offline behavior, and privacy constraints effectively. The main gap is that parameter semantics are left to inference, but the tool remains callable and understandable for an agent.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explicitly explain either parameter. 'Optional MCP client readiness' only indirectly hints at the client parameter, and response_format is not mentioned at all. The parameter names and enums provide some self-evident meaning, but the description fails to add semantic value for the parameters.

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

Purpose5/5

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

Description opens with the imperative 'Check' and names precise local resources: Google Health config, token file, Node version, privacy mode, cache readiness, and optional MCP client readiness. It also clearly scopes the tool as local-only by stating it does not call Google APIs or expose secrets, distinguishing it from API-facing siblings.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description conveys a clear use case: local, offline diagnostics of connection state. The explicit 'without calling Google APIs' gives an agent a strong signal to prefer this tool for local checks rather than remote data-access tools, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions.

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