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 and does well by disclosing critical behavioral traits: it's a destructive operation ('Delete'), requires admin privileges ('ADMIN ONLY'), and is irreversible ('Cannot be undone!'). It doesn't mention rate limits or specific error conditions, but covers the most important safety aspects.

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 three short phrases that each earn their place: the core action, permission requirement, and critical warning. It's front-loaded with the most important information and has zero wasted words.

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?

For a destructive tool with no annotations but an output schema, the description provides essential context about permissions and irreversibility. It doesn't explain what 'all files' encompasses or potential side effects, but given the output schema exists to document return values, the description focuses appropriately on the critical behavioral warnings.

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?

The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and it appropriately focuses on behavioral warnings rather than parameter documentation.

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 ('Delete all files') and resource ('files'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling 'delete_file' by specifying 'all files' rather than individual deletion. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'delete_all_chats' or 'delete_all_memories' 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 explicit usage guidance with 'ADMIN ONLY' indicating permission requirements and 'WARNING: Cannot be undone!' specifying irreversible consequences. This clearly communicates when to use (admin contexts requiring mass deletion) and when not to use (non-admin contexts or when reversibility is needed).

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