Retrieve basic health information for an Elasticsearch cluster to monitor status and detect issues. Optionally target a named cluster; defaults to the default cluster.
Returns basic information about the health of the cluster.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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."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 says "basic information" but doesn't clarify that it's read-only, doesn't list what health indicators are included, and doesn't mention whether it causes side effects. For a health-check tool with no annotations, 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 efficient sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource. It is concise but lacks additional structure that could provide context.
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 no annotations, an output schema present, and one fully documented parameter, the description covers the basic purpose. However, it doesn't explain what "health" entails or how it differs from sibling stats tools, leaving the agent with insufficient behavioral context.
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 coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents the optional cluster parameter and its default behavior. The description adds no parameter information, so this is a baseline case.
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 (Returns) and resource (health of the cluster), so the agent knows this is a read-only health check. It is inferable from the name and doesn't collide with siblings like get_cluster_stats, but it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from that 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 use this tool versus alternatives such as get_cluster_stats or general_api_request. The purpose is implied by the name, but no explicit use context or exclusions are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.