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' implies a destructive mutation, but the description doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: whether deletion is permanent or reversible, what permissions are required, if there are side effects (e.g., breaking dependencies), or rate limits. For a destructive operation 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 extremely concise at three words, with zero wasted text. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Delete'), though this brevity comes at the cost of completeness. Every word earns its place by directly stating the tool's 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?

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 essential context: behavioral risks, parameter guidance, and usage distinctions from sibling tools. The output schema mitigates some gaps, but the description doesn't provide enough information for safe and effective use.

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 (tool_id) undocumented in the schema. The description adds no parameter semantics—it doesn't explain what 'tool_id' is, how to obtain it, or its format (e.g., UUID, name). The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation, leaving the parameter's meaning unclear.

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 states the action ('Delete') and resource ('a tool'), which provides a basic understanding of purpose. However, it's vague about what constitutes a 'tool' in this context and doesn't differentiate from sibling deletion tools like delete_channel, delete_chat, or delete_function. The description merely restates the tool name without additional specificity.

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 tool ID), exclusions (e.g., cannot delete system tools), or relationships with sibling tools like delete_all_tools (which doesn't exist) or create_tool. The agent must 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.