Elasticsearch/OpenSearch MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Get') but doesn't clarify if this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, error handling (e.g., for missing documents), or response format. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely interacts with a data store.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose ('Get a document by ID.') followed by parameter details in a structured 'Args:' section. It avoids unnecessary fluff, but the parameter explanations are very brief, bordering on under-specified, which slightly reduces efficiency.

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 complexity of a document retrieval tool with no annotations, no output schema, and low parameter documentation, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'Get' returns (e.g., document content, metadata), error cases, or behavioral traits like idempotency, making it inadequate for safe and effective use by an AI agent.

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 'id') with brief labels, but schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no additional details. The description adds minimal semantics (e.g., 'Name of the index' and 'Document ID'), which is better than nothing but doesn't fully compensate for the lack of schema documentation, such as format examples or constraints.

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 ('Get') and resource ('a document by ID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'search_documents' (which retrieves multiple documents) and 'index_document' (which creates/updates). However, it doesn't explicitly mention what 'Get' entails (e.g., retrieval of metadata/content), keeping it from a perfect score.

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 like 'search_documents' for queries or 'get_index' for index-level info. It lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing document ID) or exclusions, offering only basic parameter info without usage scenarios.

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