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 critical behavioral traits: the irreversible destructive nature ('Cannot be undone!') and the authorization requirement ('ADMIN ONLY'). However, it doesn't mention potential side effects (e.g., what happens to user data or dependencies) or response format, leaving some gaps.

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 and front-loaded with essential information in just three short phrases. Every element ('Delete a user', 'ADMIN ONLY', 'WARNING: Cannot be undone!') earns its place by conveying critical purpose, usage constraints, and behavioral warnings without any wasted 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?

Given this is a high-stakes destructive operation with no annotations, the description does well on purpose and warnings but has significant gaps. It lacks parameter details (0% schema coverage) and doesn't mention the output schema's existence. For a tool that permanently deletes users, more context about parameters and potential outcomes would improve completeness.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, with only 'user_id' documented as a string. The description provides no additional parameter semantics—it doesn't explain what 'user_id' represents, its format, or where to find it. This fails to compensate for the schema's lack of detail, leaving the parameter 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 clearly states the verb ('Delete') and resource ('a user'), making the purpose specific and unambiguous. It directly distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'delete_chat', 'delete_file', or 'update_user_role' by focusing exclusively on user deletion.

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 explicitly provides usage guidance with 'ADMIN ONLY', indicating this tool requires administrative privileges. It also warns 'Cannot be undone!', which implicitly suggests caution and distinguishes it from reversible operations like 'archive_chat' or 'update_user_role'.

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