Elasticsearch/OpenSearch MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action is a deletion, implying mutation, but lacks critical details: whether it's destructive (likely yes, but not confirmed), permission requirements, error handling (e.g., if alias doesn't exist), or side effects (e.g., impact on queries using the alias). This leaves significant gaps for safe agent operation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the core purpose in the first sentence and parameters listed concisely below. There's no wasted text, though the structure could be slightly improved by integrating parameter details more seamlessly rather than as a separate 'Args' section.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (a mutation with no annotations, 2 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral context (e.g., safety, errors), usage guidance, and output details, making it inadequate for reliable agent invocation without external knowledge.

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

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

The description lists both parameters ('index' and 'name') with brief labels, but schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no additional details. The description adds basic meaning (e.g., 'index' is the index name, 'name' is the alias name), compensating somewhat for the coverage gap, but doesn't explain format, constraints, or examples, keeping it at a baseline level.

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

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

The description clearly states the verb ('Delete') and resource ('an alias for a specific index'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_index' or 'delete_document', which would require mentioning it only removes alias mappings, not the underlying data.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., alias must exist), exclusions (e.g., cannot delete if in use), or refer to sibling tools like 'list_aliases' for checking or 'put_alias' for creating aliases.

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