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. It states the tool retrieves 'extracted text content,' implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like permissions needed, rate limits, error handling, or what 'extracted' entails (e.g., OCR processing). This is inadequate for a tool with no 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 a single, clear sentence with no wasted words, making it highly concise and front-loaded. It efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary details.

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 one parameter, no annotations, and an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks context on usage guidelines and behavioral transparency, making it incomplete for effective tool selection despite the output schema covering returns.

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 ('file_id') undocumented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond implying a file identifier is needed. It doesn't explain the 'file_id' format or source, so it partially compensates but leaves the parameter semantics vague.

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 action ('Get') and resource ('extracted text content from a file'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_file' or 'search_files', which might retrieve different aspects of files, so it's not fully specific about what distinguishes this tool.

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 such as 'get_file' (which might retrieve metadata) or 'search_files' (which might list files). There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving usage unclear relative to siblings.

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