flin-gmp-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

health_check

Read-onlyIdempotent

Verify local configuration and token status without Google requests or browser launches. Use it to confirm credential readiness before accessing GMP data.

Instructions

Check local configuration and token status. No Google request or browser launch.

'ready' or 'refreshable' describes credentials only, not verified product permissions.

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": "health_check"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`account`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.1Oct 31, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the baseline is low; the description still adds real value by stating no Google request or browser launch occurs and by clarifying that 'ready'/'refreshable' reflects credential presence only, not verified product permissions. That caveat is exactly the kind of nuance annotations cannot carry.

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, front-loaded with the operation and then the constraint. Efficient, though the second sentence is dense and could be split for clarity.

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?

Return values are covered by the output schema and the safety profile by annotations, so the main remaining need is the meaning of the 'account' argument, which is absent. For a simple health check this is nearly complete, but not quite.

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 0%, so the single optional 'account' parameter is undocumented in both places; the description never explains what supplying an account changes. With only one optional parameter the gap is modest, but the description does not compensate at all.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Check local configuration and token status') and immediately delimits scope with 'No Google request or browser launch', which separates it from the authenticate and list_* siblings that do touch the API. An agent can tell what it does without opening the schema.

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?

The exclusion of network/browser activity implies this is a pre-flight sanity check, but the description never says when to prefer it over authenticate or when it should be run (startup, before a batch of calls, after a failure). Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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