Create a new Elasticsearch index with optional mappings and settings. Define the index name and cluster to organize and search your data.
Create a new index.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | No | Optional index configuration including mappings and settings | |
| index | Yes | Name of the index | |
| cluster | No | Optional cluster name. Uses the default cluster if omitted. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.1.4Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseInput schema / properties / body / descriptionAdded value: +"Optional index configuration including mappings and settings"Input schema / properties / cluster / descriptionAdded value: +"Optional cluster name. Uses the default cluster if omitted."Input schema / properties / index / descriptionAdded value: +"Name of the index"v2.1.2v2.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden for a mutating operation. It does not disclose what happens if the index already exists, whether creation requires specific privileges, or whether the operation is idempotent; 'Create' is all the agent gets.
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?
At a single short sentence it is certainly concise and front-loaded, with zero wasted words. But it is under-specified rather than tightly scoped, so the brevity reflects a gap rather than efficiency.
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?
An output schema exists and all three parameters are documented, so return values and inputs need not be explained. What is missing is behavioral context for a mutation tool with no annotations: conflict/error behavior and permissions.
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%: index name, optional body (mappings/settings), and optional cluster are all documented in the schema itself. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 a specific verb and resource ('Create a new index'), which is unambiguous on its own. However, it offers no differentiation from siblings such as create_data_stream or index_document, which also create search-related resources.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_data_stream, nor any mention of prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.