Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Elasticsearch MCP Server

Elasticsearch MCP Server

by jesee
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

es_update_document

Update an existing document in an Elasticsearch index by specifying the index, document ID, and partial fields to modify.

Instructions

Update a document

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>",
      "id": "<id>",
      "document": "<document>"
    },
    "name": "es_update_document"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesDocument ID
indexYesIndex name
documentYesPartial document to update

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.2

TDQS

D1.9/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral traits. It only says 'Update a document', which implies mutation but provides no details on partial vs full update, idempotency, error conditions, or what happens if the document does not exist.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

At only three words, the description is extremely concise but under-specifies the tool. It is not front-loaded with key information and would benefit from more context without being verbose.

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 tool has three required parameters, no output schema, and sibling tools with similar purposes, the description is completely inadequate. It does not explain return values, behavior, or error handling, leaving the agent without critical context for correct invocation.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions, which already explain 'Partial document to update'.

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 'Update a document', which is a verb+resource and distinguishes it from siblings like 'es_index_document' or 'es_delete_document'. However, it is very vague and lacks specifics about the scope or type of update, making it minimally adequate.

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

Usage Guidelines1/5

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, such as 'es_index_document' for new documents or 'es_get_document' for retrieval. There are no preconditions or exclusions mentioned.

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