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. It mentions the admin requirement, which is useful, but lacks details on behavioral traits like whether creation is irreversible, what happens on duplicate names, rate limits, or the response format. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 with two sentences that front-load the core action and critical constraint. Every word earns its place, with no wasted information or 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 has an output schema (which handles return values) and low complexity, the description is minimally complete. However, as a mutation tool with no annotations, it should provide more behavioral context (e.g., idempotency, error cases) to be fully helpful.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds no parameter information beyond what the schema provides (name and description fields). The schema itself documents these parameters adequately, but the description doesn't enhance understanding, resulting in a baseline score.

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 ('Create') and resource ('a new group'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_channel' or 'create_folder', but the resource specificity is adequate for basic clarity.

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 explicit context with 'ADMIN ONLY', indicating when to use this tool based on user permissions. However, it doesn't mention when not to use it or alternatives like 'update_group' for modifying existing groups, leaving some guidance gaps.

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