Skip to main content
Glama
cr7258

Elasticsearch MCP Server

get_alias

Retrieve alias information for a specific Elasticsearch index, optionally targeting a named cluster.

Instructions

Get alias information for a specific index.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
indexYesName of the index
clusterNoOptional cluster name. Uses the default cluster if omitted.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv2.1.4
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
    • addedInput schema / properties / cluster / description
      Added value: +"Optional cluster name. Uses the default cluster if omitted."
    • addedInput schema / properties / index / description
      Added value: +"Name of the index"
  2. Addedv2.1.2
  3. Removedv2.1.1
  4. First observed

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does 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. 'Get' implies a read operation, but the description does not state permissions, rate limits, or whether it returns all aliases for the index or a single alias.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple getter, though its brevity leaves gaps in usage and behavioral context.

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

Completeness3/5

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, and the input schema fully covers parameters. However, with no annotations and no routing to alternatives such as list_aliases, the description remains incomplete regarding when and how to use this tool versus siblings.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline score of 3 appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('alias information') scoped to a specific index. It is clear enough to understand the operation, but it does not differentiate this tool from sibling list_aliases or get_index.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives. It merely restates the purpose, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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