openwebui-mcp-server

openwebui_update_knowledge

Update a knowledge base's name or description without altering its existing files.

Instructions

Update a knowledge base name or description. Does not affect files already in the collection.

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "openwebui_update_knowledge"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	Knowledge base ID to update
`name`	No	New name (optional)
`description`	No	New description (optional)

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 adds the key behavioral note that files are untouched, which is valuable. However, it does not disclose details about mutation semantics (e.g., partial vs. full replacement) or any error/permission conditions, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 short sentences convey the core purpose and the key caveat. No wasted words; the front-loaded action makes it immediately scannable.

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 update tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior and the non-effect on files. It may benefit from mentioning whether the update is partial or full, but overall it is sufficient for the tool's simplicity.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description's phrase 'name or description' aligns with the name/description parameters but adds no extra semantic detail 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 clearly identifies the action (update), the resource (knowledge base), and the specific fields affected (name or description). It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_knowledge and file-management tools by explicitly stating it does not affect files.

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?

The description implicitly conveys when to use it: for updating metadata rather than file contents. The statement 'Does not affect files already in the collection' provides context but does not explicitly name alternative tools like add/remove file, so it is clear but lacking explicit exclusions.

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