Elasticsearch/OpenSearch MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool deletes a document, implying a destructive mutation, but doesn't mention critical details like whether deletion is permanent, requires specific permissions, has side effects (e.g., on related data), or returns confirmation. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 with two sentences: one for the core purpose and one for parameter listing. It's front-loaded with the main action. The parameter section is clear but could be integrated more seamlessly. There's minimal waste, though the formatting with 'Args:' feels slightly verbose for such a short description.

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 a destructive tool with 2 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on behavioral consequences (e.g., irreversibility), error conditions, return values, and system context. The description should do more to compensate for the absence of structured metadata.

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 both parameters (index and id) with brief explanations, adding meaning beyond the schema's bare titles. However, it doesn't explain what an 'index' represents in this context, valid ID formats, or constraints (e.g., index must exist). The description partially compensates but leaves key semantics unclear.

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 action ('Delete') and target ('a document by ID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like delete_index (which deletes entire indices) and delete_by_query (which deletes based on queries rather than ID). However, it doesn't specify what type of document or system this applies to, leaving some ambiguity.

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., document must exist), when not to use it (e.g., for bulk deletions), or refer to sibling tools like delete_by_query for different deletion methods. Usage is implied only through the tool name and basic description.

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