openwebui-mcp-server

openwebui_create_knowledge

Create a new RAG knowledge base collection for organizing documents. Populate it with files using separate upload tools for retrieval-augmented generation.

Instructions

Create a new RAG knowledge base collection. After creating, use openwebui_upload_file and openwebui_add_file_to_knowledge to populate it.

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": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "openwebui_create_knowledge"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes	Name for the knowledge base
`description`	No	Optional description of what this knowledge base contains

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.2Aug 10, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context that this is a RAG collection and that population is a separate step, but does not disclose potential side effects, permission requirements, or behavior on duplicate names.

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 two sentences, front-loading the primary purpose and adding a single relevant workflow hint. No wasted words.

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?

For a simple creation tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description provides the essential information: what the tool creates and how to populate it afterward. It doesn't cover return values or error handling, but these are less critical for a create operation with this complexity.

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 schema already describes both parameters (name and description) with 100% coverage, so the description doesn't need to add much. It does not elaborate on parameter formats or constraints beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 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 uses a specific verb ('create') and resource ('RAG knowledge base collection'), clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools that list, get, update, or delete knowledge bases. It also provides workflow context by naming the follow-up tools for populating the collection.

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?

It clearly states the creation purpose and explicitly points to openwebui_upload_file and openwebui_add_file_to_knowledge for the next step, guiding the agent on subsequent actions. It doesn't explicitly contrast with update/delete tools, but the workflow hint effectively carves out when to use this tool versus adding files to existing knowledge.

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