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 only states the action ('Get') without detailing whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, how results are formatted, or any limitations like pagination. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior beyond the basic action.

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 extremely concise with just three words, front-loading the key information without any wasted text. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool, making it easy to parse quickly, though this conciseness contributes to gaps in other dimensions.

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 complexity (2 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what the tool returns, how to interpret results, or any behavioral nuances, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use the tool effectively beyond the basic action implied by the name.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with parameters 'index' and 'alias' clearly documented. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining how these parameters interact or typical usage patterns. However, since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately.

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 'Get index aliases' states the basic action (get) and resource (index aliases), which is clear but minimal. It doesn't specify whether this retrieves all aliases, aliases for specific indices, or how it differs from sibling tools like 'list_indices' or 'get_index', making it somewhat vague in distinguishing its specific scope.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'list_indices' or 'get_index', nor any context about prerequisites or typical use cases. The description lacks any explicit or implied usage instructions, leaving the agent with no direction on application.

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