OpenSearch MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but only states the basic function. It doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires specific permissions, rate limits, pagination behavior, or what the return format looks like. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff or redundancy. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a search tool with 4 parameters. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like safety, performance, or result format, nor does it provide usage context relative to siblings. For a tool in a security data context with multiple alternatives, more guidance is needed.

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?

The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema already provides (100% coverage). It doesn't explain the semantics of 'query' (e.g., Lucene syntax), 'timeRange' formats, or how 'maxResults' interacts with pagination. Since the schema covers all parameters adequately, the baseline score of 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?

The description clearly states the action ('Search for') and resource ('security alerts in Wazuh data'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'searchLogs' or 'getAlertDetails', but the focus on 'alerts' versus 'logs' or 'details' provides some implicit distinction.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'searchLogs', 'getAlertDetails', or 'alertStatistics'. It lacks any mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or specific contexts that would help an agent choose appropriately among the sibling tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.