Creates or updates a document in a specified Elasticsearch index, optionally using a custom document ID or cluster.
Creates or updates a document in the index.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | Optional document ID | |
| index | Yes | Name of the index | |
| cluster | No | Optional cluster name. Uses the default cluster if omitted. | |
| document | Yes | Document data |
| 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 / document / descriptionAdded value: +"Document data"Input schema / properties / id / descriptionAdded value: +"Optional 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 behavioral burden. It discloses upsert behavior ('creates or updates'), but omits permissions, overwrite/conflict semantics tied to the optional id, index existence prerequisites, and any 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?
It is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. However, its extreme brevity is undersized for a mutation tool with optional id and cluster semantics.
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?
The output schema covers return values and the 100% schema coverage documents parameters, so the description need not repeat those. Still, missing usage guidance and mutation behavior details leave meaningful gaps for an upsert tool with no annotations.
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 every parameter is documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 (creates or updates) and resource (a document in the index), making the core operation clear. It does not differentiate the tool from sibling document tools like get_document or search_documents.
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?
The description provides no when-to-use guidance, no alternatives, and no conditions such as requiring an existing index or using the optional id to update instead of create. Sibling tools are not mentioned at all.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.