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 'Get[s] detailed shard allocation information,' implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify aspects like whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or what format the output takes. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in 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: 'Get detailed shard allocation information.' It is front-loaded with the core purpose, has zero wasted words, and is appropriately sized for a simple tool. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 (likely moderate, involving cluster data), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'detailed' information includes, how results are formatted, or behavioral traits like error handling. For a tool with no structured support, the description should provide more context to be fully helpful.

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 1 parameter with 100% description coverage ('Index pattern to filter'), so the schema fully documents the parameter. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as examples of index patterns or how filtering works. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 states the tool's purpose as 'Get detailed shard allocation information,' which is clear but vague. It specifies the verb 'Get' and resource 'shard allocation information,' but lacks specificity about what 'detailed' entails or how it differs from sibling tools like 'allocation_explain' or 'cluster_health.' It avoids tautology but doesn't fully distinguish from alternatives.

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 sibling tools like 'allocation_explain' (which might explain shard allocation issues) or 'cluster_health' (which includes shard status), nor does it specify prerequisites or contexts for usage. This leaves the agent without clear direction on tool selection.

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