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 states the tool deletes a channel and all its messages, implying a destructive, irreversible operation. However, it lacks critical details: whether deletion is permanent, if it requires specific permissions, what happens to associated data (e.g., files, users), or error conditions (e.g., invalid channel_id). For a destructive 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 a single, direct sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action ('Delete a channel') and adds essential scope ('and all its messages'). Every word earns its place, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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 this is a destructive mutation tool with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, but an output schema exists, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address permissions, reversibility, side effects, or error handling. The output schema might cover return values, but the description fails to provide necessary context for safe and correct usage, especially compared to sibling tools like 'delete_channel_message'.

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% description coverage (only 'Channel ID' with no context), and the description adds no parameter information. However, with only one required parameter (channel_id), the baseline is 4 for zero parameters, but since there is one parameter, it's adjusted to 3. The description doesn't explain what a channel_id is, where to find it, or format requirements, leaving the schema to do all the work.

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') and the resource ('a channel and all its messages'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'delete_channel_message' (which deletes individual messages) and 'delete_chat' (which deletes chats rather than channels). However, it doesn't specify whether this is a permanent or reversible deletion, which would make it a perfect 5.

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., needing admin permissions), consequences (e.g., irreversible data loss), or when to choose 'delete_channel' over 'archive_chat' or 'delete_all_chats'. 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.