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 mentions 'roles and permissions' but doesn't explain what happens upon creation (e.g., whether the user is immediately active, if email verification is needed, or what the response includes). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose ('Create a new user') and adds necessary detail ('with specified roles and permissions') without redundancy, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 user creation tool (a mutation operation with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema), the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavioral outcomes, error conditions, or what the tool returns, leaving the agent with incomplete guidance for proper invocation.

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 already documents all 7 parameters with basic descriptions. The description adds minimal value by hinting at 'roles and permissions', which aligns with the 'roles' parameter, but doesn't provide additional context like format examples or constraints beyond what the schema states. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 ('Create a new user') and specifies what gets created ('with specified roles and permissions'), which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'set_user_enabled' or 'get_user', which would require explicit comparison to achieve a score of 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. There are multiple sibling tools for user management (e.g., 'delete_user', 'get_user', 'set_user_enabled'), but the description doesn't mention any of them or provide context about prerequisites, such as required permissions or when user creation is appropriate.

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