OpenSearch MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.9.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have distinct purposes, but CountTool and SearchIndexTool both involve queries and could be confused without careful reading. The GenericOpenSearchApiTool is a catch-all that overlaps with all other tools, but it's intended for unsupported APIs.
Naming Consistency3/5
All tool names use CamelCase and the 'Tool' suffix, but the verb/noun order is inconsistent: some start with verbs (GetShards, ListIndex, SearchIndex), others with nouns (ClusterHealth, DataDistribution), and some are generic (CountTool, ExplainTool). This mix reduces predictability.
Tool Count5/5
With 11 tools, the server covers the main OpenSearch operations (cluster health, indexing, searching, analysis) without being overwhelming. The count is well-scoped for a search engine MCP server.
Completeness4/5
Core operations like listing indices, searching, counting, and explaining are covered. Missing dedicated tools for index creation/deletion and bulk operations, but the GenericOpenSearchApiTool fills these gaps, making the surface fairly complete.
Average 3.3/5 across 11 of 11 tools scored. Lowest: 2.7/5.
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 is failing
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

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description should fully disclose behavioral traits. It only says it returns information, omitting critical details such as whether it requires special permissions, if it is read-only, or what side-effects (if any) exist. This is insufficient for safe invocation.
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, concise sentence with no wasted words. However, it may be too terse, sacrificing completeness for brevity.
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 tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description should at least cover the parameter's role and what 'basic information' entails. It fails to do so, making it incomplete for effective use.
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 input schema has one parameter (index) with 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention or explain it. The parameter's purpose and expected values are entirely undocumented, adding no value beyond the schema itself.
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 it returns basic cluster health information, using a specific verb (returns) and resource (cluster health). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like ListIndexTool or ExplainTool, which could also provide health-related 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. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
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 bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it returns a count, without addressing read-only nature, authentication, rate limits, side effects, or the query's impact. The description is insufficient for an agent to understand 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no wasted words. However, it omits critical information that could be added without sacrificing conciseness, such as parameter guidance or query format hints.
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 tool's simplicity, lack of annotations, 50% schema coverage, no output schema, and multiple sibling tools, the description is too brief. It fails to explain the expected query structure in 'body', how to specify the index, or the return format (e.g., integer). This leaves the agent underinformed.
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?
Schema description coverage is 50% (only the 'body' parameter has a vague description, 'index' has none). The tool description adds no parameter details, leaving the agent to guess the expected structure for 'body' and the role of 'index'. This is insufficient, especially given the lack of enum or output 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?
The description clearly states that the tool returns the number of documents matching a query, which aligns with the tool name 'CountTool'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like SearchIndexTool by focusing on count rather than document retrieval, but could be more specific about the query format (e.g., JSON query).
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 such as SearchIndexTool or ExplainTool. There is no mention of prerequisites, when not to use it, or how it compares to sibling tools, leaving the agent without decision-making support.
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?
Minimal behavioral disclosure beyond what the schema provides; lacks details on request limits, error handling, or output format.
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?
Single sentence is concise but could benefit from more detail without becoming verbose.
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 complexity of batch search and lack of output schema/annotations, the description is incomplete; missing response format, limitations, and prerequisites.
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?
Body parameter description adds value by explaining NDJSON format and JSON array alternative, but index parameter lacks any description.
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 clearly states it executes several search operations in one request, distinguishing it from single-search tools like SearchIndexTool.
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 vs. alternatives like SearchIndexTool or other batch operations.
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, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, what error behavior occurs for missing indices, or any side effects. The minimal description provides almost no transparency.
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 sentence that is front-loaded and to the point. It is efficient, but could be expanded with useful details without becoming verbose.
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 no output schema and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the nature of the shard information (e.g., allocation, health, routing), what the return data looks like, or any prerequisites. This is insufficient for an agent to use the tool confidently.
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%, and the parameter 'index' already has a descriptive label ('The name of the index to get shard information for'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 applies.
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 ('gets') and resource ('information about shards in OpenSearch'). It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like ClusterHealthTool or SearchIndexTool, though it could be more precise about what shard information is returned.
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. The description does not mention when it is appropriate or when to avoid it, leaving the agent to infer solely from the name.
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, the description carries the full burden for behavioral traits but only states it returns information. It does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, requires existing documents, or any side effects, which is insufficient for a reliable selection.
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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words or structure.
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?
Despite having 3 required parameters and no output schema, the description is too brief. It lacks details on output format, constraints, or how the tool complements siblings, leaving the agent underinformed.
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?
Schema description coverage is only 33% (body described). The tool description adds no extra meaning for index and id parameters beyond the schema, missing an opportunity to clarify their roles in the explanation context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool returns information about why a document matches or doesn't match a query, using specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like SearchIndexTool which returns documents rather than explanations.
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 does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent without information on appropriate usage conditions.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool searches using DSL but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as read-only nature, authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or side effects. This is minimal transparency.
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 two sentences, concise and front-loaded with the action. No unnecessary words. It efficiently communicates the core purpose and a prerequisite.
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 no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the output format (despite the 'format' parameter), error behavior, or how results are returned. The prerequisite is useful but the overall context for an agent to correctly invoke the tool is lacking.
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 does not add meaning beyond the schema; it only reiterates the prerequisite. The query_dsl parameter has detailed hints in the schema but not in the description.
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 'Searches' and the resource 'an index using a query written in query DSL in OpenSearch.' It differentiates from siblings like CountTool or ExplainTool by focusing on search with DSL, but does not explicitly distinguish from MsearchTool (multi-search). The prerequisite adds context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides a prerequisite ('You need to know the mappings of the index before constructing queries') which implies proper usage, but it does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., use IndexMappingTool to get mappings first). No explicit when-not or alternative recommendations.
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?
No annotations provided, so description must disclose behaviors. Only states retrieval, but does not mention read-only nature, needed permissions, or if it has side effects. Minimal transparency.
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?
Single sentence, no unnecessary words. Front-loaded with action verb 'Retrieves'. Highly concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Adequate for a simple retrieval tool with one parameter and no output schema. But could mention that output includes both mapping and settings, and lacks any usage tips or examples.
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 covers 100% of the single parameter with a clear description. Tool description adds no extra detail beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states the tool retrieves index mapping and setting information for an OpenSearch index, specifying verb, resource, and context. Distinct from siblings like ListIndexTool or SearchIndexTool.
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 ListIndexTool for listing indices or SearchIndexTool for searching. Lacks context on prerequisites or when not to use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must convey behavioral traits. It states the tool 'automatically extracts meaningful patterns, groups similar patterns, identifies outliers, and provides insights for debugging.' This covers core behavior but lacks detail on potential side effects, data volume limits, or authentication requirements. The description is adequate but not exhaustive.
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 moderately concise, with each sentence adding value. It front-loads the purpose and lists use cases efficiently. A minor reduction could be made by removing the marketing adjective 'Intelligent,' but overall it is well-structured and not overly verbose.
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 tool's complexity (8 parameters, 5 required, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not explain the output format or results, nor does it describe the optional parameters like baseTimeRangeStart/End for baseline comparison. The description would benefit from specifying what the tool returns and how to interpret results.
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 description coverage is 100%, so each parameter already has a description. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it reiterates the purpose but does not provide format details or usage hints beyond what the schema offers. Therefore, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the tool as an intelligent log pattern analysis tool for troubleshooting and anomaly detection. It lists specific use cases like analyzing error patterns, identifying unusual log sequences, and comparing patterns between time periods. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like SearchIndexTool or GenericOpenSearchApiTool, which are more general-purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly states when to use the tool: for analyzing error patterns, identifying anomalies, comparing patterns, finding root causes, etc. It also calls it 'essential for log-based troubleshooting, incident analysis, and proactive monitoring.' However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or mention alternatives among siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so description must handle transparency. It notes automatic field detection, value distribution calculation, and numeric grouping, but does not specify side effects or read-only nature. Some behavioral context is provided.
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 relatively concise with a few sentences covering key points. It could be slightly more structured, but it is clear and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema exists, and the description does not explain return values or output format. It covers the tool's purpose and capabilities but leaves gaps in what the agent can expect as result.
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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context about single vs. comparative analysis (mapping to selectionTimeRange and baselineTimeRange) but does not explain parameters beyond schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool analyzes data distribution patterns and field value frequencies in OpenSearch indices, distinguishing it from siblings like CountTool or SearchIndexTool. It specifies both single and comparative analysis modes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions use cases (anomaly detection, data quality, trend analysis) and gives a concrete example (failures over time). However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It states the tool is flexible and supports all HTTP methods, but doesn't disclose potential side effects, idempotency, or rate limits. The mention of leveraging knowledge of API documentation implies the agent must understand those details, which is acceptable for a generic tool.
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 concise with four sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and uses clear language. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool is generic with no output schema, the description adequately covers its purpose, usage, and parameter expectations. It mentions leveraging the agent's API knowledge, which compensates for the lack of detailed behavior. The schema coverage is high, making the description complete enough.
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%, so the baseline is 3. The description provides a high-level overview of supported components (path, method, query params, body, headers) but doesn't add significant meaning beyond the schema descriptions. The examples in the schema complement this.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it is for calling any OpenSearch API endpoint, lists supported HTTP methods, and distinguishes from siblings by specifying when to use it (when dedicated tools don't exist, or for more control).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool: 'Use this when you need to access OpenSearch APIs that don't have dedicated tools, or when you need more control.' This provides clear guidance and implicitly suggests using other tools when available.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility. It discloses the effect of each parameter on the output, and implies a read-only, non-destructive operation. No side effects are mentioned, but none are expected for a listing tool.
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?
Two sentences efficiently cover the tool's purpose, optional filtering, and parameter behavior. No wasted words, front-loaded with main action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool is simple with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description is sufficient. It explains both parameters and the output format. Could elaborate on 'full metadata' but not necessary for tool selection.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining how the 'index' parameter filters results and how 'include_detail' controls output verbosity, going beyond the schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states the tool lists indices in the OpenSearch cluster, mentions optional filtering by name/pattern, and explains the include_detail flag. Distinguishes itself from sibling tools like SearchIndexTool by its specific resource (indices) and listing action.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides context on when to use parameterized calls (filtering by index/pattern) and default behavior. Does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, but the purpose is clear enough to infer usage.
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

Copy to your README.md:

[![opensearch-mcp-server-py MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/solanabughunter-glitch/opensearch-mcp-server-py/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/solanabughunter-glitch/opensearch-mcp-server-py)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![opensearch-mcp-server-py MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/solanabughunter-glitch/opensearch-mcp-server-py/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/solanabughunter-glitch/opensearch-mcp-server-py)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

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/solanabughunter-glitch/opensearch-mcp-server-py'

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