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 'make recent changes available for search,' which implies a write-like operation that updates index state, but doesn't specify if it's idempotent, requires permissions, has side effects (e.g., performance impact), or details on what 'refresh' entails (e.g., flushing to disk). This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action and outcome, making it easy to understand at a glance. Every part of the sentence earns its place by conveying essential information.

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 (a mutation operation with no annotations and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., idempotency, permissions), expected outcomes, error conditions, or how it interacts with siblings like 'search' or 'create_index'. For a tool that modifies system state, this minimal description is insufficient.

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%, with the parameter 'index' documented as 'Index name or pattern.' The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as examples of valid names or what 'pattern' entails. Since the schema already provides full 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 clearly states the action ('refresh') and resource ('an index') with the purpose of making recent changes available for search. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_index' or 'delete_index' by focusing on updating rather than creating or removing. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from tools like 'get_index' or 'search' in terms of function.

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., after data updates), exclusions (e.g., not for initial indexing), or compare to siblings like 'search' (which might trigger auto-refresh) or 'get_index_stats' (for monitoring). Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.

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