Retrieve field names, data types, and searchable/aggregatable flags for any Kibana index pattern, enabling schema inspection before querying Elasticsearch logs.
Get field names and types for an index pattern via Kibana. Shows field names, types, and whether they are searchable/aggregatable.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| index | Yes | Index pattern, e.g., "logs-my-service*" or "filebeat-*" |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It semantically implies a read-only operation through 'Get' and 'Shows' and explains the returned information. However, it doesn't explicitly state that no changes occur or how invalid index patterns are handled, which would add useful transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences with no filler. The primary action and output are front-loaded, and every clause adds relevant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains the purpose and the kind of data returned. It doesn't detail response structure or error behavior, but those are minor gaps given the simplicity of the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the 'index' parameter with an example. The description reinforces that it applies to an index pattern but adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('field names and types for an index pattern'), and clarifies the output includes searchability/aggregatability flags. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_indices and list_data_views.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description makes the use case clear: when an agent needs index pattern field mappings, types, and search/aggregation metadata. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the context is strong enough for an agent to select it appropriately.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.