Create a new index in Elasticsearch or OpenSearch clusters to organize and store documents for search operations.
Create a new index.
Args:
index: Name of the index
body: Optional index configuration including mappings and settings
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| index | Yes | ||
| body | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.6Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Create a new index' implies a write/mutation operation, it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like: whether this requires specific permissions, whether it's idempotent, what happens on conflict, rate limits, or what the response looks like. The description is minimal and lacks crucial operational context.
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 appropriately concise with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter documentation. The Args section is well-structured. However, the description could be more front-loaded with critical information about the tool's behavior and usage context.
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?
For a mutation tool with 2 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what an 'index' is in this context, what system this operates on, what happens after creation, or provide any error handling information. The description leaves too many critical questions unanswered.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides basic parameter names and minimal semantics ('Name of the index', 'Optional index configuration including mappings and settings'), which adds some value beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't explain format requirements, constraints, or provide examples for the 'body' parameter configuration.
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 'Create a new index' which is a clear verb+resource combination, but it's quite generic and doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'create_data_stream' or 'index_document'. It doesn't specify what kind of index this creates or what system it operates in.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_data_stream' or 'index_document'. The description provides no context about prerequisites, when this operation is appropriate, or what happens if an index already exists with the same name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.