Removes an alias from a specific Elasticsearch index, letting you detach alias names when they are no longer needed or must be reassigned.
Delete an alias for a specific index.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Name of the alias | |
| 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 / cluster / descriptionAdded value: +"Optional cluster name. Uses the default cluster if omitted."Input schema / properties / index / descriptionAdded value: +"Name of the index"Input schema / properties / name / descriptionAdded value: +"Name of the alias"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 burden. It does not state that this is a destructive mutation, that it only removes the alias pointer (leaving index data intact), or what happens if the alias/index pair does not exist.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is efficient, though its terseness is part of why behavioral coverage is thin.
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 so return values need not be explained, but for a destructive operation with no annotations the description should at least clarify that only the alias mapping is removed, not indexed data. That key disambiguation is missing.
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 all three parameters (name, index, cluster) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no format, default, or constraint detail beyond it, so 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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Delete an alias') plus the scope 'for a specific index'. This separates it from put_alias, get_alias and list_aliases, though it does not explicitly name any sibling.
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 delete an alias versus reassigning one with put_alias, nor any prerequisite or warning condition. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.