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 a prompt template, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, error handling (e.g., if the command doesn't exist), rate limits, or what the output contains. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely returns structured data.

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 purpose ('Get a prompt template') without unnecessary words. Every part 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 has an output schema (which handles return values), one parameter, and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks context on usage, parameter details, and behavioral aspects. For a simple retrieval tool, it meets basic needs but leaves room for improvement in guidance and transparency.

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%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'by its command', which hints at the 'command' parameter, but doesn't explain what a 'command' is (e.g., a unique identifier, format examples) or provide any details beyond the schema's basic type. With one undocumented parameter, this adds minimal semantic value.

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 ('a prompt template'), specifying it's retrieved 'by its command'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_prompts' (which lists all) and 'create_prompt' (which creates). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'update_prompt' or 'delete_prompt', missing full sibling differentiation.

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 command), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'list_prompts' for browsing or 'create_prompt' for new templates. Usage is implied 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.