AWS OpenSearch MCP Server

get_indexing_stats

Retrieve document, storage, indexing, search, merge, refresh, and segment statistics for OpenSearch domains.

Instructions

Get document, storage, indexing, search, merge, refresh and segment statistics.

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": {
      "profile": "<profile>",
      "region": "<region>",
      "domain": "<domain>"
    },
    "name": "get_indexing_stats"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`index`	No	*
`domain`	Yes
`region`	Yes
`profile`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 8, 2026

TDQS

C2.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so description must cover behavioral traits. It only states 'Get' which implies read-only, but does not confirm idempotence, permission requirements, or any side effects. Missing critical safety cues for a tool with no annotations.

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 with no wasted words. However, it is only a list, missing structure (e.g., grouping or hierarchy) that could improve readability. Still concise relative to the tool's complexity.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values might be covered, but the description omits critical context: the scope (per index), parameter semantics, and usage scenario. For a tool with 4 parameters and 3 required, this one-liner is insufficient.

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?

Input schema has 0% description coverage. The description does not explain any parameter (profile, region, domain, index) or the default for index. It adds no meaning beyond the schema, leaving the agent without guidance on how to populate required fields.

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 lists specific statistics categories (document, storage, indexing, search, merge, refresh, segment). It identifies what the tool retrieves, but does not differentiate from siblings like get_cluster_stats or get_index_details, which reduces clarity.

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 merely lists statistics without explaining context (e.g., diagnosing performance issues). No mention of prerequisites or situations where it is better than siblings.

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