Skip to main content
Glama
imlewc

Elasticsearch 7.x MCP Server

by imlewc
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python
Remote

Server Quality Checklist

58%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v1.0.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: es-info retrieves server information, es-ping checks connectivity, and es-search performs document searches. There is no overlap or ambiguity between these functions, making tool selection straightforward for an agent.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    All tool names follow a consistent 'es-' prefix and underscore-separated verb pattern (es-info, es-ping, es-search). This predictable naming convention enhances readability and usability across the tool set.

    Tool Count2/5

    With only 3 tools, the server feels thin for an Elasticsearch domain, which typically involves operations like indexing, updating, deleting, and aggregating documents. The count is too low to cover the expected scope of a database/search engine server.

    Completeness2/5

    The tool set is severely incomplete for Elasticsearch functionality. It lacks essential CRUD operations (e.g., create, update, delete documents), index management, and query features beyond basic search, which will likely cause agent failures in handling typical database tasks.

  • Average 2.3/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • No stable releases found
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI status not available

  • This repository is licensed under Apache 2.0.

  • This repository includes a README.md file.

  • No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.

    Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.

  • Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.

  • If you are the author, simply .

    If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:

    {
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}

    Then . Browse examples.

  • Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

  • Behavior1/5

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

    No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without details on permissions, rate limits, response format, or side effects. For a search tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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

    Conciseness4/5

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

    The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for the basic information it conveys, though it could be more informative without losing conciseness.

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

    Completeness1/5

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

    Given the complexity (search operation with nested object parameter), lack of annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is completely inadequate. It fails to provide necessary context for correct tool invocation.

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

    Parameters1/5

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

    Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no information about the single parameter 'req' (an object). It doesn't explain what 'req' should contain, such as query fields or options, leaving parameters completely undocumented.

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

    Purpose3/5

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

    The description states the action ('Search') and resource ('documents in Elasticsearch index'), which gives a basic understanding of purpose. However, it lacks specificity about what kind of search (e.g., full-text, filtered) and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'es-info' or 'es-ping', making it vague rather than clear.

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

    Usage Guidelines2/5

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

    No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context for searching, or exclusions, leaving the agent with no usage instructions beyond the basic purpose.

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

  • Behavior1/5

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

    No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('Get') without explaining what 'info' entails (e.g., cluster health, node details, version), whether it's read-only or has side effects, or any rate limits or authentication needs. This leaves critical behavioral traits unspecified.

    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?

    The description is extremely concise at three words, with no wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.

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

    Completeness1/5

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

    Given the complexity (1 parameter with nested object, no output schema, no annotations), the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what information is returned, how to use the parameter, or behavioral aspects, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use the tool effectively.

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

    Parameters1/5

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

    The schema has 1 parameter ('req') with 0% description coverage, and the tool description provides no information about parameters. The description doesn't explain what 'req' should contain or how to structure it, failing to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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

    Purpose3/5

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

    The description 'Get Elasticsearch info' clearly states the action (get) and resource (Elasticsearch info), making the basic purpose understandable. However, it's vague about what specific information is retrieved and doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'es-ping' (which likely checks connectivity) or 'es-search' (which searches data).

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

    Usage Guidelines2/5

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

    No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or exclusions. With sibling tools like 'es-ping' and 'es-search' available, the agent receives no help in choosing between them.

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

  • Behavior2/5

    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. It only states the action 'ping' without explaining what that entails—whether it's a health check, connectivity test, returns status codes, or has side effects. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

    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?

    The description is extremely concise with just three words, front-loading the essential action and target. There is no wasted language, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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

    Completeness2/5

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

    Given the complexity of a ping operation (which could involve network checks, authentication, or status returns), no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't provide enough context for an agent to understand how to use the tool effectively or what to expect in return.

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

    Parameters2/5

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

    The schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no information about the single parameter 'req'. It doesn't explain what 'req' should contain, its purpose, or how it affects the ping operation, failing to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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

    Purpose4/5

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

    The description clearly states the verb 'ping' and the target resource 'Elasticsearch server', making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'es-info' or 'es-search', but the action is specific enough to understand what it does.

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

    Usage Guidelines2/5

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

    No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'es-info' or 'es-search'. The description only states what it does, not when it should be used or what context it applies to.

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

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

  • Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
  • Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
  • Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

elasticsearch7-mcp-server MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

elasticsearch7-mcp-server MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/imlewc/elasticsearch7-mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server