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 effectively communicates the destructive nature of the operation ('Delete... and all its files') and the irreversible consequence ('Cannot be undone!'), which are critical behavioral traits for a deletion tool. However, it doesn't mention permissions, rate limits, or response format.

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 perfectly concise with just two sentences that each earn their place: the first states the action and scope, the second provides the critical warning. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and wastes no 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 deletion tool with no annotations but with an output schema (which handles return values), the description provides good coverage of the critical behavioral aspects. It clearly communicates the irreversible nature and scope of deletion. The main gap is the lack of parameter guidance, but given the output schema exists and the tool's purpose is straightforward, it's reasonably complete.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter documentation. The description doesn't mention the 'knowledge_id' parameter at all, nor does it explain what format it expects or where to find it. While the tool name implies what parameter is needed, the description adds no specific parameter semantics beyond what's already obvious.

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 specific action ('Delete') and resource ('a knowledge base and all its files'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'delete_file' or 'delete_folder' which target different resources. It provides precise scope information about what gets deleted.

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 clear warning ('WARNING: Cannot be undone!') that signals when to use this tool cautiously, though it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives like 'archive_chat' or compare with other deletion tools. The warning provides important contextual guidance about irreversible consequences.

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