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 mentions the admin requirement, which is a key behavioral trait, but lacks details on what the configuration includes, potential rate limits, or response format. This is adequate but leaves gaps for a tool with no annotations.

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—just two short sentences—with zero wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose and follows with a critical usage constraint, making it highly efficient and easy to parse for an AI agent.

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 has 0 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema exists, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the purpose and admin restriction, which are essential. However, with no annotations, it could benefit from more behavioral context, but the output schema mitigates this gap.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter details, and it correctly avoids redundancy. A baseline of 4 is appropriate as it efficiently handles the no-parameter case without unnecessary elaboration.

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 ('default models configuration'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from potential siblings like 'get_model' or 'list_models' beyond the 'default' and 'configuration' aspects, which is why it doesn't reach a perfect score.

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 states 'ADMIN ONLY,' providing clear context about when to use this tool based on user permissions. It doesn't specify alternatives or exclusions, but the admin restriction is a strong usage guideline that helps the agent decide appropriateness.

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