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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Get') but doesn't describe traits like whether it's read-only (implied but not confirmed), authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or the return format. The description is minimal and lacks essential behavioral context 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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Get a specific note') and includes the key constraint ('by ID'). No extraneous information is present, making it highly concise and well-structured for its purpose.

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 (single parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is somewhat complete for basic use. However, with no annotations and minimal parameter details, it lacks context on permissions, errors, and behavioral nuances. It meets minimum viability but has clear gaps in guiding effective 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?

The description mentions 'by ID', which aligns with the single parameter 'note_id' in the schema. However, schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter details. The description adds minimal semantics (it's an ID) but doesn't specify format (e.g., string pattern), validation, or examples. Baseline is adjusted due to low coverage, but the description only partially compensates.

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 ('a specific note'), making the purpose evident. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_notes' (which retrieves multiple notes) by specifying retrieval by ID. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'get_note' vs. other get_* tools beyond the resource type.

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 prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid note ID), contrast with 'list_notes' for bulk retrieval, or specify error conditions (e.g., what happens if the ID doesn't exist). Usage is implied by the name but not explicitly stated.

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