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 note' implies a destructive operation, but it doesn't disclose whether deletion is permanent, reversible, requires specific permissions, or has side effects (e.g., affecting related data). This is a significant gap for a mutation tool 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 extremely concise ('Delete a note.') with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded and efficiently communicates the core action, though this brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.

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 coverage, and an output schema (which helps but isn't described), the description is inadequate. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects, parameter meaning, or usage context, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use the tool safely and correctly.

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%, but the description doesn't add any parameter information beyond what's implied by the tool name. The single parameter 'note_id' is undocumented in both schema and description. However, with only one parameter, the baseline is 4, but the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap, resulting in a score of 3.

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 note' clearly states the verb (delete) and resource (note), making the basic purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_chat' or 'delete_file', leaving ambiguity about what distinguishes a 'note' from other deletable resources in this system.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing the note ID), exclusions, or relationships to sibling tools like 'create_note' or 'update_note', leaving the agent to infer usage context 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.