Discover available Elasticsearch indices by searching Kibana data views, with optional pattern filtering to locate specific service logs.
List available indices by searching Kibana data views. Filter by pattern to find specific service logs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pattern | No | Filter pattern, e.g., "logs-*" 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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the mechanism ('searching Kibana data views') and filtering behavior, which is useful, but it does not mention what the returned list contains, how pattern matching works beyond the schema examples, or any permissions or side effects. For a read-only listing tool this is adequate but not rich.
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?
The description consists of two tight sentences that front-load the core function and then clarify the filtering use case. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail.
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 simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core behavior and typical usage well. It does not explicitly describe the return format, but 'List available indices' strongly implies an enumeration of indices, and the sibling tool list makes the context reasonably complete.
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%; the schema already documents the pattern parameter with defaults and examples. The description adds the intended use ('find specific service logs') but no new technical detail, so 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.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb and resource: 'List available indices by searching Kibana data views.' It also gives a concrete use case ('Filter by pattern to find specific service logs') and is distinguishable from the sibling tool list_data_views, which targets data views themselves rather than indices.
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 implies when to use the tool (when you need to find indices via Kibana data views, especially for service logs), but it does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives such as list_data_views, search_logs, or get_mapping. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.