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 states the tool creates a note, implying a write operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether the note is private/shared, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens on success (e.g., returns note ID). The mention of 'markdown content' is useful but insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose ('Create a new note') and adds a useful detail ('with markdown content') 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 has an output schema (which likely covers return values), no annotations, and a clear but minimal input schema, the description is moderately complete. It states the purpose but lacks behavioral context for a mutation tool. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe returns, but more guidance on usage and transparency would improve completeness.

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 input schema clearly defines 'title' and 'content' parameters with descriptions. The description adds minimal value by mentioning 'markdown content', which aligns with the schema's 'content' description. However, it doesn't explain parameter constraints, formats, or examples beyond what the schema provides, 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 ('new note'), specifying that it includes 'markdown content'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'update_note' (modification) and 'delete_note' (removal), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other creation tools like 'create_channel' or 'create_folder' beyond the resource type.

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., authentication, permissions), when not to use it, or how it compares to similar creation tools like 'create_channel' or 'create_folder' in the sibling list.

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