Retrieve an Elasticsearch index mapping as a compact field:type list to reduce token usage; set raw=true to return the original nested JSON.
Return an index mapping as a flat field:type list (compact, token-cheap). Pass raw=true for the nested ES JSON.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| raw | No | ||
| index | Yes | ||
| connection | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does 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 usefully discloses the default output behavior ('flat field:type list', 'compact, token-cheap') and the raw alternative, but does not explicitly state read-only safety, permission requirements, or error behavior for missing indices/connections.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed immediately by the only non-obvious output option. No wasted words.
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 simple read retrieval tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains the returned shape and the raw alternative. The main omission is enough detail about the connection and index parameters to fully compensate for the zero schema descriptions.
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 0%, so the description should compensate for all three parameters. It explains only the 'raw' parameter meaningfully; 'index' is only implied by 'an index mapping', and 'connection' is not addressed at all.
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 a specific verb and resource: 'Return an index mapping'. It also specifies the output shape ('flat field:type list') and an alternative mode ('raw=true'), which distinguishes it in practice from a generic request tool. It does not explicitly name which sibling to use instead, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.
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?
Usage is implied by 'Return an index mapping' and the raw=true option gives a clear conditional for output mode. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over es_request or es_list_indices, and no when-not-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.