Retrieve a document by its ID from an Elasticsearch index, optionally specifying a cluster name. Use this to fetch specific records for inspection or processing.
Get 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. 'Get' implies a read, but the description says nothing about behavior on a missing document (error vs empty), permissions, or whether the result is a point-in-time snapshot; an output schema exists, which covers return values but not behavior.
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, correctly leading with verb and resource. It is appropriately sized given the rich schema and existing output schema.
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 and full parameter documentation, the definition is minimally sufficient for a simple read tool. The remaining gap is behavioral context (error semantics, cluster fallback implications) that neither annotations nor the description supply.
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 the schema already documents id, index, and the optional cluster default. The description adds only 'by ID', which is redundant with the schema; 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?
States a specific verb (Get) and resource (document) and adds the lookup key ('by ID'), which distinguishes it from search_documents. It does not, however, reference any sibling tool or explain how it differs from them.
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 statement of when to prefer search_documents or get_index instead, and no prerequisites such as whether the index must exist. Usage must be inferred 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.