openwebui-mcp-server

openwebui_update_prompt

Update an existing saved prompt's name or content in Open WebUI. The command trigger cannot be changed; delete and recreate instead.

Instructions

Update an existing saved prompt's name or content. The command (trigger) cannot be changed — delete and recreate instead.

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": "openwebui_update_prompt"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	No	New name (optional)
`command`	Yes	The prompt's command (e.g. "/summarize")
`content`	No	New prompt content (optional)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.2Aug 10, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, and the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key constraint that command is immutable, which is valuable. However, it does not mention whether updates are partial or full, what happens if the command does not exist, permissions needed, or the return value. These are notable gaps for a mutating tool.

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?

Single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It conveys the action, the scope, and a critical constraint in a compact and efficient manner.

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?

Given the low complexity (3 parameters, no nested objects, no output schema) and high schema coverage, the description provides sufficient context for invocation and highlights the main caveat. Missing return value/error details are acceptable for this simple update tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema descriptions cover all parameters (100% coverage), but the description adds crucial semantics: command is an immutable identifier for selecting the prompt, while name and content are the only fields that can be updated. This goes beyond the schema's simple descriptions and aids correct invocation.

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 states the action ('Update') and the resource ('existing saved prompt'), listing the mutable fields (name, content). It also distinguishes from sibling create/delete tools by noting the command cannot be changed, with a delete-and-recreate alternative.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly states that the command/trigger cannot be changed and instructs to delete and recreate instead. This provides clear when-to-use guidance and names the alternative approach, making it easy for an agent to choose between update and create/delete.

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