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 but provides almost none. 'Delete a folder' implies a destructive operation, but doesn't specify whether deletion is permanent or reversible, what permissions are required, whether it cascades to contained items, what happens on success/failure, or any rate limits. This is inadequate for a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage.

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 maximally concise at three words with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the essential action and resource, though this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness. Every word earns its place in conveying the core function.

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 operation with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and an output schema (which reduces but doesn't eliminate the need for behavioral context), the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't address critical aspects like permanence, permissions, cascading effects, or error conditions that an agent needs to understand before invoking a delete operation.

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 schema has 0% description coverage (parameter 'folder_id' has only a generic 'Folder ID' description), and the tool description provides no parameter information whatsoever. For a single-parameter tool where the schema offers minimal semantic information, the description should compensate but fails to do so, leaving the agent with inadequate understanding of what constitutes a valid folder_id.

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 folder' clearly states the verb (delete) and resource (folder), making the basic purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling delete tools like delete_file, delete_chat, or delete_channel, which all follow the same 'delete [resource]' pattern without specifying what distinguishes folder deletion from other deletion operations.

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. There are multiple deletion tools in the sibling list (delete_file, delete_chat, delete_channel, etc.), but the description doesn't indicate when folder deletion is appropriate versus other deletion operations or what prerequisites might exist for using this tool.

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