Elastic 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. It mentions what information is returned but doesn't disclose behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation (implied by 'Get'), potential performance impact, authentication requirements, rate limits, or error conditions. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get the health status...') and adds specific details about what's included. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration. It's appropriately sized for this type of diagnostic tool.

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 moderate complexity (health monitoring with 3 optional parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool does but lacks behavioral context and usage guidance. The absence of output schema means the description should ideally hint at return format, but it doesn't. It's complete enough to understand the basic purpose but insufficient for confident use.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents all three parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. According to scoring rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description, which applies here.

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 ('health status of the Elasticsearch cluster'), and specifies what information is included ('node counts, shard status, and overall health'). It distinguishes this tool from other cluster-related tools like 'cluster_info' and 'cluster_stats' by focusing specifically on health metrics. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all sibling tools, so it's not a perfect 5.

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 'cluster_info' or 'cluster_stats'. It doesn't mention prerequisites, timing considerations, or specific use cases. The agent must infer usage from the purpose alone, which is insufficient for optimal tool selection.

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