AWS OpenSearch MCP Server

get_latest_documents

Fetch documents from an OpenSearch index sorted by timestamp descending. Optionally restrict results to only those within the last specified hours.

Instructions

Return newest documents sorted by a date field, optionally restricted by lookback hours.

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>",
      "index": "<index>"
    },
    "name": "get_latest_documents"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`size`	No
`index`	Yes
`domain`	Yes
`region`	Yes
`profile`	Yes
`source_fields`	No
`lookback_hours`	No
`timestamp_field`	No	@timestamp

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 8, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, error handling, or what happens if the index is missing. The description only states the basic function.

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?

A single sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource. Very concise, but could be expanded slightly to include essential context 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?

Despite having an output schema (not shown), the description is insufficient given the tool's 8 parameters and no schema descriptions. It omits the role of required parameters and does not specify what the tool returns or how it handles edge cases.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'date field' and 'lookback hours' but does not explain critical parameters like 'profile', 'region', 'domain', 'index', 'size', 'source_fields', or 'timestamp_field'. Parameter names are self-explanatory, but the description fails to add value beyond the 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 uses a specific verb 'Return' and clearly identifies the resource as 'newest documents' sorted by a date field, with optional lookback hours. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'search_index' or 'list_indices' which operate on different levels.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_index'. The description implies use for newest documents but provides no exclusion criteria or context for choosing this tool over others.

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