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 action is 'Delete', implying a destructive mutation, but doesn't specify if deletion is permanent, reversible, requires specific permissions, or has side effects (e.g., affecting associated data). For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in safety and operational context.

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, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately scannable and efficient. Every word earns its place by conveying essential information without redundancy.

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 complexity (destructive mutation with 1 parameter), lack of annotations, and presence of an output schema (which might cover return values), the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It states what the tool does but misses critical context like behavioral risks, parameter details, and usage guidelines, leaving gaps for safe and effective invocation.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'a specific memory', which hints at the 'memory_id' parameter, but doesn't explain what a memory ID is, its format, or how to obtain it (e.g., from 'list_memories'). This adds minimal semantic value beyond the bare schema, failing to address the coverage gap adequately.

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 specific memory'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'delete_all_memories' by specifying 'a specific' memory rather than all memories. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'update_memory' or 'reset_memories', 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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid memory_id), when not to use it (e.g., for bulk deletion), or point to related tools like 'delete_all_memories' or 'update_memory'. This leaves the agent to infer usage from context alone.

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