Open WebUI MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Create a new folder' implies a write operation but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it requires specific permissions, if it's idempotent, what happens on conflicts (e.g., duplicate names), or the response format. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 extremely concise ('Create a new folder.') with zero wasted words, making it front-loaded and easy to parse. Every word earns its place by directly stating the core action, though this conciseness comes at the cost of detail.

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 complexity (simple creation with one parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which likely covers return values), the description is minimally complete. However, with no annotations and low schema coverage, it lacks context on permissions, error handling, and behavioral nuances, making it adequate but with clear gaps.

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%, and the description adds no parameter information beyond what's implied by the tool name. The single parameter 'name' is documented in the schema but without description in the schema itself. The description doesn't compensate by explaining the parameter's role, constraints, or format, resulting in a baseline score of 3 due to the single parameter.

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 'Create a new folder' clearly states the verb ('Create') and resource ('folder'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'update_folder' or 'delete_folder' by specifying creation rather than modification or deletion. However, it doesn't specify what kind of folder (e.g., file system folder, organizational folder) or context, which prevents a perfect score.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing parent folder permissions), when not to use it (e.g., if a folder already exists), or how it relates to sibling tools like 'create_channel' or 'create_group'. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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