get_aliasesList which indices each Elasticsearch alias targets, with optional index or wildcard filtering. Resolve alias ambiguity to clarify mapping results.
List which aliases point to which indices. A name you query may be an alias, which changes what get_mappings returns.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| index | No | Index or wildcard. Omit for the whole cluster. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds behavioral context by warning that aliases affect get_mappings results, which is useful beyond the annotations. No contradiction exists.
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?
Two sentences, no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds valuable contextual information without unnecessary length.
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 simple read-only tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description provides sufficient guidance. It could mention what the response contains, but the annotations and sibling context cover most operational concerns.
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%, so the optional 'index' parameter is already documented. The description doesn't add parameter-level detail beyond what the schema states, which matches the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'List which aliases point to which indices.' It clearly communicates the tool's purpose and implicitly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_indices and get_mappings.
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 gives concrete context for when this tool matters: when a queried name may be an alias and alters what get_mappings returns. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the usage context is clear enough for an agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.