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 the action ('invalidate') but doesn't clarify critical behaviors: whether this is reversible, what permissions are required, if it affects active sessions, or any rate limits. For a destructive operation on security credentials, this lack of transparency is a significant gap that could lead to misuse.

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 directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately scannable. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 this is a destructive security operation with 3 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address safety considerations, error conditions, or what happens after invalidation (e.g., are keys permanently deleted?). For such a sensitive tool, more context about implications and behavior is needed for safe 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?

The description mentions 'one or more API keys' which hints at the 'ids' parameter supporting multiple values, but doesn't add meaningful semantics beyond what the schema already provides. With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description doesn't explain parameter interactions (e.g., using 'ids' vs. 'name' with wildcards) or provide examples, so it doesn't elevate the score.

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 ('invalidate') and resource ('API keys'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'create_api_key' and 'list_api_keys' by focusing on revocation rather than creation or listing. However, it doesn't specify whether this is a permanent deletion or temporary invalidation, which would make it 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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication requirements), when not to use it (e.g., for temporary suspension vs. permanent deletion), or how it relates to sibling tools like 'delete_user' or 'set_user_enabled' for broader access management. The agent must infer usage from context alone.

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