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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Delete' implies a destructive mutation, but the description doesn't state whether this action is reversible, requires specific permissions, has side effects (e.g., affecting related resources), or what happens on success/failure. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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, direct sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple deletion tool and front-loads the essential action and resource. Every word earns its place, making it highly efficient.

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 this is a destructive mutation tool with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and an output schema (which helps but isn't described), the description is incomplete. It lacks critical context like behavioral risks, parameter details, and usage guidance. For a tool that permanently removes data, this minimal description is insufficient.

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%, with one parameter ('command') completely undocumented in the schema. The description adds no parameter information beyond what's implied by the tool name—it doesn't explain what 'command' represents (e.g., a prompt identifier), its format, or examples. This fails to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 prompt template' clearly states the verb ('Delete') and resource ('prompt template'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'delete_chat' or 'delete_file' by specifying the resource type. However, it doesn't specify whether this is a soft or permanent deletion, which could be relevant context.

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 the prompt to exist), consequences (e.g., irreversible deletion), or related tools like 'update_prompt' or 'create_prompt'. With many sibling deletion tools, this lack of differentiation is a significant gap.

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