Open WebUI MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates a destructive action ('Delete all your memories') and warns about irreversibility ('Cannot be undone!'), which are critical behavioral traits. However, it lacks details on permissions, side effects, or response format, leaving some gaps 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—two short sentences that front-load the core action and follow with a critical warning. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration, making it highly efficient and well-structured.

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 high complexity (destructive operation) and no annotations, the description does well by stating the action and irreversibility. However, it lacks details on prerequisites, permissions, or what 'memories' entails, and while an output schema exists, the description could benefit from more context to fully guide usage in this sensitive scenario.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately adds no parameter details, focusing on the action and warning. A baseline of 4 is applied as it compensates well for the lack of parameters by providing clear operational context.

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 explicitly states the action ('Delete all your memories') and the resource ('memories'), making the purpose clear and specific. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'delete_memory' (singular) and 'reset_memories' (which may imply a different operation), avoiding tautology by not just restating the name.

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 includes a strong warning ('WARNING: Cannot be undone!'), which implicitly advises caution and suggests this tool should be used only when permanent deletion is intended. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'delete_memory' (for single deletions) or 'reset_memories' (if available), missing explicit sibling differentiation.

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