Retrieve high-level statistics for an Elasticsearch cluster to monitor health and performance. Optionally specify a cluster name; defaults to the default cluster.
Returns high-level overview of cluster statistics.
| 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 behavioral burden, yet it only says it returns an overview. It omits permission requirements, whether the call is read-only/safe, cost or rate considerations, and what 'statistics' actually encompass.
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?
One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. For a zero-required-parameter read tool this is an appropriately sized description.
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, and the single parameter is fully documented. But the total absence of annotations plus an unaddressed near-duplicate sibling (get_cluster_health) leaves the definition only minimally sufficient.
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 the single optional 'cluster' parameter is already documented as defaulting to the default cluster, so the description adds nothing beyond structured data. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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?
The description names a specific verb and resource ('Returns ... cluster statistics') and scopes it as a 'high-level overview,' so the agent knows it is an aggregate/summary read. However, it does nothing to separate this from the close sibling get_cluster_health, which an agent could easily confuse it with.
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 statement of when to use this tool, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as get_cluster_health or general_api_request. The agent must guess the intended context 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.