Remove an Elasticsearch index by name, optionally from a specific cluster, to clean up unused data and free storage.
Delete an index.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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"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 whether deletion is irreversible, what happens to indexed documents, whether it requires a stopped index or specific permissions, or how errors are surfaced. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
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 waste. It is precise, if sparse, and earns its place without padding. Slight deduction for being too terse to be fully helpful.
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?
The tool is a destructive operation with no annotations and only a bare description. Even with an output schema covering return values and a fully documented parameter schema, the description omits critical context: irreversibility, side effects, permissions, and failure modes. An agent cannot safely invoke this on description alone.
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%, and both parameters are documented in the schema (index name, optional cluster with default). The description adds nothing beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies — adequate but no extra value.
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+resource ('Delete an index'), so the purpose is unambiguous. But it offers no differentiation from siblings like delete_document, delete_alias, or delete_data_stream — it merely relies on the name. Minimum viable.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, no mention of alternatives. The agent gets no signal about how this differs from delete_by_query or other delete siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.