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' implies a write operation, but it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether creation is idempotent, rate limits, or what happens on failure. It mentions 'for RAG' which adds some context about purpose, but lacks operational details needed for safe invocation.

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, efficient sentence that states the core action without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the verb and resource, making it easy to parse. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 reduces need to describe return values) but no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks parameter details, usage context, and behavioral transparency. For a creation tool with one required parameter, it should do more to compensate for missing structured data.

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 provides no information about parameters beyond what's implied by the tool name. The input schema shows a 'params' object with 'name' and 'description' fields, but the description doesn't explain their semantics, constraints, or examples. This leaves key parameters undocumented.

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 ('new knowledge base for RAG'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'update_knowledge_base' or 'delete_knowledge_base' by specifying creation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other creation tools (e.g., 'create_folder', 'create_channel'), 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., permissions), when not to use it, or how it relates to sibling tools like 'list_knowledge_bases' or 'update_knowledge_base'. 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.