Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Elasticsearch MCP Server

Elasticsearch MCP Server

by jesee
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

es_search

Search documents in an Elasticsearch index using query DSL, with options to set result count and offset.

Instructions

Search documents

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": {
      "index": "<index>"
    },
    "name": "es_search"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fromNoStarting offset (default: 0)
sizeNoNumber of results to return (default: 10)
indexYesIndex name or pattern
queryNoSearch query DSL

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.2

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Behavior2/5

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 only says 'Search documents' with no mention of read-only nature, potential performance impact, or required permissions. Schema shows a query DSL but description adds nothing.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is extremely concise (2 words) but lacks structure and could be more informative without being verbose. It is not overly long, but it is under-specified.

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 (4 params, nested query DSL, no output schema, no annotations), the description is insufficient. It does not explain return values, pagination, or behavior nuances, leaving agents without necessary context.

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 coverage is 100% (all parameters have descriptions). Baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema.

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?

Description states 'Search documents' which clearly indicates the tool's action and resource. However, it does not differentiate from potential sibling tools like es_get_document, but no direct sibling with similar name exists, so it's adequate.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as es_get_document or es_list_indices. The description lacks any context for appropriate usage or when to avoid it.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools