Remove a document by ID from a specified Elasticsearch index, optionally targeting a cluster instead of the default.
Delete a document by ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Document ID | |
| 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 / id / descriptionAdded value: +"Document ID"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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state that deletion is destructive/irreversible, whether a missing ID errors or is silently ignored, whether the change is immediately visible (refresh), or whether the operation is idempotent.
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 short sentence with the key selector front-loaded and no wasted words. It is efficient, though it is arguably terse rather than genuinely information-dense.
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?
With an output schema present, return values needn't be explained, but for a destructive operation with zero annotations the description omits the safety and failure-mode context an agent needs. The absence of any alternatives guidance leaves a real gap for a 3-parameter delete tool.
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 (id, index, cluster) are already documented in the schema, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds only the 'by ID' selector and gives no extra semantics such as cluster/index routing behavior.
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 (Delete) and resource (document) plus the selector ('by ID'), which distinguishes it from the index-level delete_index. It does not, however, differentiate from the sibling delete_by_query, which is the closest alternative.
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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives such as delete_by_query for bulk/conditional deletion. The agent must infer the choice from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.