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. It states it 'gets metadata' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens if the file doesn't exist. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loads the essential information. Every word earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 low complexity (1 parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and incomplete parameter documentation, it leaves gaps in behavioral context and usage guidance that could hinder correct tool selection.

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 description doesn't mention parameters at all, while the schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage (only 'File ID' with no format details). Since schema_description_coverage is 0%, the description should compensate but doesn't. However, with only 1 parameter, the baseline is 4, but the lack of any parameter guidance reduces it to 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 clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('metadata for a specific file'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_file_content' (which retrieves content) and 'list_files' (which lists multiple files). However, it doesn't specify what metadata is included, leaving some ambiguity.

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 when to choose 'get_file' over 'get_file_content' (for content vs metadata) or 'list_files' (for multiple files vs one). No prerequisites or exclusions are stated, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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