Query Elasticsearch indices to retrieve matching documents using an index, search body, and optional cluster for application or analysis needs.
Search for documents.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes | Search query | |
| 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 / body / descriptionAdded value: +"Search query"Input 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 behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing about pagination, query DSL expectations, or that this is a non-mutating read. Only the verb 'Search' weakly implies a read operation; permissions, limits, and result behavior are all unstated.
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 short sentence is efficient and front-loaded, but it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise. There is no wasted text, yet almost no information is conveyed.
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, but this is a nested-object search tool with two required params and zero annotations, and the description supplies none of the missing behavioral or usage context. It is inadequate for the tool's complexity.
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 parameters (index, body, cluster) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about the query body structure or cluster selection, so the baseline 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 clear verb and resource ('Search for documents'), but adds no scope or qualifier to distinguish it from siblings like get_document or delete_by_query. An agent cannot tell from the description alone which index/query semantics apply or how it differs from other document operations.
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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives (e.g., get_document for ID lookup), and no prerequisites such as needing an existing index. The agent must infer everything from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.