openwebui-mcp-server

openwebui_create_prompt

Create reusable slash-command prompts for Open WebUI chats. Specify a trigger command, display name, and prompt content with {{input}} placeholder to reuse instructions instantly.

Instructions

Create a new saved prompt in Open WebUI. Prompts are invoked by typing their command in any chat. Command must start with "/" (e.g. "/summarize").

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": {
      "command": "<command>",
      "name": "<name>",
      "content": "<content>"
    },
    "name": "openwebui_create_prompt"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes	Human-readable name shown in autocomplete suggestions
`command`	Yes	Trigger command (must start with "/", e.g. "/summarize", "/translate")
`content`	Yes	The prompt text. Use {{input}} as a placeholder for user-provided text.

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?

No annotations are available, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the command prefix constraint and invocation behavior. However, it does not address duplicate command conflicts, error handling, or what happens on success (e.g., returned resource).

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?

Two concise sentences lead with the action verb and give a useful usage tip. No wasted words, well-structured.

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 create tool with fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description is adequately complete. It covers the tool's purpose and a critical input format requirement. A note about uniqueness conflicts could be added but is not essential.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% for all three parameters, so the schema already documents command, name, and content. The description only repeats the '/' requirement already present in the schema, adding no new parameter semantics.

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?

States a specific action 'Create a new saved prompt in Open WebUI' with a clear verb+resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_prompt, delete_prompt, and list_prompts.

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?

Provides clear context: prompts are invoked by typing their command in chat and must start with '/'. This helps the agent understand when the tool is appropriate, but does not explicitly mention alternatives like update_prompt for modifications.

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