Kibana status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates a read-only connectivity check and specifies the exact state reported (Kibana version, active space, read-only/index-allowlist settings). It does not cover failure behavior or side effects, but for a parameterless status tool the disclosed behavior is adequately transparent.

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 sentence that front-loads the primary purpose ('Check connectivity') before listing the reported items. Every word contributes to the agent's understanding; there is no filler or repetition.

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?

For a parameterless status tool with no output schema, the description covers the operation, the scope ('this MCP server'), and the content of the result (version, active space, settings). Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the description has no parameter meanings to clarify. With no required or optional inputs, the baseline for a no-parameter tool applies; the description adequately focuses on the operation rather than inputs.

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 names a specific action ('Check connectivity') on a specific resource ('Kibana' / 'this MCP server') and enumerates the exact information returned: version, active space, and read-only/index-allowlist settings. Among sibling tools focused on Elasticsearch queries, mappings, and data views, this is the only status/health tool, so it is readily distinguishable.

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 phrase 'Check connectivity' provides clear context for when to call this tool: to verify the server is reachable and inspect its current configuration. It does not explicitly list alternatives or exclusions, but as the sole status tool among the siblings, the guidance is sufficient.

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