Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-tester-helper

mcp-tester-helper

by Pstasov
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

os_mappings

Retrieve field mappings for an OpenSearch index. Specify the index name and target stand to get the mapping structure.

Instructions

Get field mappings for a specific OpenSearch index.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "stand": "<stand>",
      "index": "<index>"
    },
    "name": "os_mappings"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
indexYesIndex name to get mappings for
standYesTarget stand (e.g. staging)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It implies a read-only operation ('get') but does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond that, such as permissions needed or response format.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Single sentence with no unnecessary words. Front-loaded and to the point.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple retrieval tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is sufficient. However, it might benefit from mentioning that it returns the mapping structure, though that is implied.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains both parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what is already in the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb 'Get' and resource 'field mappings' with a clear target 'specific OpenSearch index'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like os_search (search) and os_indices (list indices).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., os_search or os_indices) or any prerequisites. The description does not address context or exclusions.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools