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 tool deletes documents, implying a destructive mutation, but lacks critical details: it doesn't mention whether deletions are permanent, if there are rate limits, what permissions are required, or what happens on errors. The description is minimal and leaves key behavioral traits unspecified.

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 concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose clearly. The Args section is structured but could be more integrated. There's no wasted text, though it borders on under-specification rather than optimal brevity.

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 (destructive operation with 2 parameters, nested objects in body, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It fails to address critical context like deletion consequences, error handling, query examples, or output expectations. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists parameters with brief explanations ('Name of the index', 'Query to match documents for deletion'), but these add minimal semantic value beyond the schema's property names. It doesn't explain index naming conventions, query syntax, or provide examples, leaving significant gaps in parameter understanding.

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 tool's purpose: 'Deletes documents matching the provided query.' It specifies the verb ('deletes') and resource ('documents'), and distinguishes it from siblings like delete_document (single document) and delete_index (entire index). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all alternatives like general_api_request.

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 when to prefer delete_by_query over delete_document (for bulk deletion) or delete_index (for removing entire indices), nor does it discuss prerequisites like index existence or query validation.

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