MCP Elasticsearch Demo

Lista wartości filtra

list_facets

List available values for a chosen field—doc_type, product, or tags—with document counts, so you can pick valid filters for search_documents instead of guessing names.

Instructions

Zwraca dostępne wartości danego pola (doc_type, product albo tags) wraz z liczbą dokumentów — przydatne, żeby dowiedzieć się jakich filtrów można użyć w search_documents, zamiast zgadywać nazwę produktu czy tagu.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "field": "<field>"
    },
    "name": "list_facets"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`field`	Yes	Pole, dla którego pobrać dostępne wartości

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Sep 11, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the returned payload (values with document counts), which is useful behavioral context, but says nothing about permissions, whether the list is exhaustive, or result size/pagination for a potentially large facet set.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler; the resource, the field list, the count detail, and the routing note are all packed in without redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description must convey return content, and it does: values plus counts. For a one-parameter read-only lookup this is nearly complete, though the exact response shape (per-value count structure) is left implicit.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single parameter is a fully enumerated enum, so the schema already defines the allowed values. The description restates the same three values and their filter role without adding syntax, format, or default semantics beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource: returns the available values of a given field (doc_type, product or tags) plus document counts. The field enumeration and the count detail let an agent distinguish this lookup from search_documents and get_document immediately.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly names the intended context ('useful to learn which filters can be used in search_documents') and the alternative it replaces ('instead of guessing a product name or tag'), which is strong routing guidance. It does not state an explicit when-not-to-use condition, so it falls short of a 5.

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

Deploy Server