Couchbase MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

list_search_indexes

Read-only

List Couchbase Search (FTS) indexes, optionally filtered by bucket and scope, to inspect available full-text indexes before requesting an index definition.

Instructions

List Search (FTS) indexes, optionally filtered by bucket and scope.

Filtering behavior:

No filters: lists cluster-level ("legacy") Search indexes only — the original, pre-scoped FTS index model, defined at the cluster level.
bucket_name only: lists scope-level (scoped) Search indexes across every scope in that bucket.
bucket_name and scope_name: lists scope-level Search indexes in that one scope only.
scope_name without bucket_name is invalid — returns an error entry explaining that bucket_name is required.

Each entry contains: name, uuid, source_name, source_type, idx_type, bucket, scope. bucket/scope are None for cluster-level (legacy) entries. This is a summary view — to get one index's full definition (mappings, analyzers, plan params), call get_search_index_definition with that entry's name and its own bucket/scope values (both, for a scoped entry; neither, when they're None). Don't reuse this call's filters: listing by bucket_name alone spans several scopes, and get_search_index_definition rejects a bucket without a scope.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`scope_name`	No
`bucket_name`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv1.1.0Nov 5, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description goes further by disclosing the invalid-input error path and the legacy-vs-scoped model distinction. It adds genuine context but nothing about result size, ordering, or limits for a list operation that could return many entries.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Front-loaded with the purpose, then organized into a bulleted filtering section and a follow-up-pointer paragraph, so structure is strong. It runs long and the entry-field enumeration plus the filter-reuse warning are dense, but nearly every clause carries actionable content.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a two-parameter, zero-required list tool with an output schema, the description covers filtering semantics, the legacy/scoped distinction, error cases, and the exact handoff to get_search_index_definition. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and interpret the entries.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the full burden, and it does: bucket_name alone spans all scopes in the bucket, bucket_name+scope_name narrows to one scope, and scope_name alone is an error. Both parameters are given semantics the bare schema completely lacks.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("List Search (FTS) indexes") plus the filtering dimension, which cleanly separates it from list_indexes and get_search_index_definition in the sibling list. An agent can identify the tool's role without opening the schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Enumerates the four filter combinations explicitly, including the invalid scope-only case and its error behavior, and names the alternative tool (get_search_index_definition) with the condition that selects it. It even warns against reusing this call's filters for the follow-up call.

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

Deploy Server