Open WebUI MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as permissions needed, whether the operation is idempotent, how duplicates are handled, or what the output contains (though an output schema exists). For a write operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place by conveying essential information without redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (a write operation with one parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which reduces need to describe returns), the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and low schema coverage, it lacks details on behavioral context and parameter meaning, making it incomplete for optimal agent use.

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 0%, but the description doesn't add any parameter details beyond what's implied by the tool name. The single parameter 'content' is undocumented in both schema and description. Baseline is 3 because the parameter count is low (1) and the tool's purpose is straightforward, but no semantic clarification is provided.

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 action ('Add') and resource ('memory to your memory store'), making the purpose evident. It distinguishes from siblings like 'update_memory' or 'delete_memory' by specifying 'new', but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'reset_memories' or 'query_memories' beyond the verb.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_memory' or 'delete_memory'. The description implies creation of new memories but doesn't specify prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases, leaving the agent to infer usage from context alone.

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