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. 'Delete a file' implies a destructive, irreversible mutation, but it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether deletion is permanent, requires specific permissions, affects linked resources, or has rate limits. The description is minimal and lacks critical context for a destructive operation.

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 ('Delete a file.') with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded and efficiently communicates the core action. Every sentence (though only one) earns its place by stating the essential purpose.

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 destructive nature, no annotations, and an output schema (implied but not detailed here), the description is incomplete. It lacks context on safety, permissions, side effects, or return values. For a mutation tool with potential irreversible consequences, this minimal description is inadequate despite the output schema.

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 1 parameter with 0% description coverage (only 'File ID' as a string). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the tool name, failing to explain what 'file_id' represents (e.g., format, source). With low schema coverage, the description doesn't compensate, but the single parameter is straightforward, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Delete a file' clearly states the action (delete) and resource (file) with a specific verb. It distinguishes from siblings like 'delete_folder' or 'delete_all_files' by specifying individual file deletion. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'delete_all_files' or mention file types, keeping it from 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 like 'delete_all_files' or 'delete_folder'. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., file existence, permissions) or exclusions (e.g., cannot delete system files). Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.

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