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 mentions 'details' and 'file list' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what happens on invalid IDs. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Get details'). There's no wasted text, though it could be slightly more structured by separating purpose from output details. It earns its place but lacks depth.

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. It states what the tool does but misses context like usage scenarios, error handling, or behavioral constraints. For a simple retrieval tool, it's passable but incomplete for optimal agent 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 'knowledge_id' documented only as 'Knowledge base ID' in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific meaning beyond implying a knowledge base is needed. Since schema coverage is low, the description doesn't compensate, but with only one parameter, the baseline is moderate.

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 'knowledge base details including file list', making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_knowledge_bases' (which lists multiple) and 'create_knowledge_base' (which creates). However, it doesn't specify if this retrieves metadata, configuration, or full content, 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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. It doesn't mention prerequisites like needing a knowledge base ID, nor does it compare to siblings like 'list_knowledge_bases' for browsing or 'update_knowledge_base' for modifications. The description assumes context without stating it.

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