mcp-tester-helper

os_search

Search OpenSearch indexes using Query DSL for log analysis and data queries. Specify index, stand, and query body.

Instructions

Search an OpenSearch index using Query DSL. Use for log analysis and data queries.

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>",
      "query_body": "<query_body>"
    },
    "name": "os_search"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`index`	Yes	Index name to search (e.g. "app-logs-*")
`stand`	Yes	Target stand (e.g. staging)
`fields`	No	Optional: fields to return in _source
`query_body`	Yes	Complete OpenSearch Query DSL body (query, size, from, sort, aggs, etc.)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jul 28, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It fails to disclose side effects, permissions, rate limits, or any behavior beyond the search action. The description is too brief to convey behavioral traits.

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?

Two sentences with no fluff. Purpose is front-loaded and the description is well-structured and concise. Every sentence is meaningful.

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

Completeness2/5

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

No output schema and no behavioral details. The tool involves nested Query DSL objects, but the description does not cover pagination, error handling, or return format. Incomplete for a search tool of this complexity.

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 coverage is 100% with all parameters described. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema; it only mentions 'Query DSL' which is already in the schema's parameter description. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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

Purpose4/5

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

Clearly states it searches an OpenSearch index using Query DSL, with a specific use case for log analysis and data queries. Distinguishes from siblings like db_query (database) and os_mappings (mapping info), but does not explicitly contrast with them.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Provides a hint about when to use (log analysis and data queries) but no explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives. The context from sibling tools implies differentiation but the description itself lacks exclusions.

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

Deploy Server