Retrieve mappings, settings, and aliases for a specified Elasticsearch index to understand its structure and configuration.
Returns information (mappings, settings, aliases) about one or more indices.
| 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. It says what information is returned but omits behavioral details: whether it requires read permissions, whether it works on missing indices (throws vs returns empty), and it doesn't mention that it's a read-only operation with no side effects.
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 front-loads the return types. No filler or redundancy.
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 present, the description needn't detail return values, but for a read-only tool with no annotations it should still disclose permission requirements and behavior on missing indices. The lack of any behavioral context leaves gaps.
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 both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds 'one or more indices' (implying the index param could accept multiple, though schema shows a single string), which is a minor addition. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 (indices) and lists the info types (mappings, settings, aliases). It is distinguishable from siblings like create_index or list_indices, but it doesn't explicitly name alternatives for retrieving index metadata.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as list_indices, get_alias, or get_data_stream. The description only says what it returns, not when to call it or for what purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.