Elastic 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 this is a read operation ('Get'), implying it's non-destructive, but doesn't address other critical aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what the output format looks like. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral transparency.

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 immediately states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Get basic cluster information') and specifies the details included. Every word earns its place, making it maximally concise while remaining informative.

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 simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It explains what information is retrieved but doesn't cover behavioral aspects like authentication or output format. For a read-only metadata tool, this might be sufficient, but the lack of output details and behavioral context keeps it at a baseline level of completeness.

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 with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description appropriately doesn't waste space discussing parameters, maintaining focus on what the tool does rather than what it accepts. This meets the baseline expectation for parameterless tools.

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 with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('basic cluster information'), specifying what information is retrieved ('version and build details'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'cluster_health' or 'cluster_stats' by focusing on version/build metadata rather than health metrics or statistical data. However, it doesn't explicitly name these distinctions, keeping it at a 4 rather than a 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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, timing considerations, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'nodes_info' or 'cluster_health' that might provide overlapping or complementary information. This lack of explicit usage context leaves the agent without clear selection criteria.

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