Elastic MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves information, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify details like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or the format of the returned information. This leaves gaps in understanding how the tool behaves in practice.

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 a single, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse. There's no wasted verbiage or redundancy.

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 has 0 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but lacks depth. It explains what the tool does but doesn't cover behavioral aspects like authentication needs or response format. For a simple tool, this might suffice, but it could be more informative to aid an agent fully.

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 tool has 0 parameters, and the input schema has 100% coverage (empty object). The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, as there are none to document. A baseline score of 4 is appropriate since no parameters exist, and the description doesn't introduce confusion.

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: 'Get information about the currently authenticated user.' It specifies the verb ('Get information about') and the resource ('the currently authenticated user'), making the action clear. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_user' or 'list_users', which could retrieve user information in different contexts.

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., authentication status), exclusions, or compare it to sibling tools such as 'get_user' or 'list_users'. Without this context, an agent might struggle to choose between similar tools.

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