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 'Get details' but doesn't reveal any behavioral traits: it doesn't specify if this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, how errors are handled, or the format of returned details. This leaves the agent with minimal insight into how the tool behaves beyond its basic purpose.

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: 'Get details for a specific tool.' It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, with zero wasted words. Every part of the sentence earns its place by conveying the core action and target, making it highly efficient for an agent 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's low complexity (1 parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally complete. However, with no annotations and poor parameter documentation, it lacks context on behavior and usage. It's adequate for a simple lookup tool but misses opportunities to clarify scope and alternatives, making it just viable.

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 input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage (only 'Tool ID' as a placeholder). The description adds no meaning beyond the schema—it doesn't explain what a 'tool' refers to in this context, how to obtain the tool_id, or what format it expects. With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving the parameter poorly documented.

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 'Get details for a specific tool' clearly states the verb 'Get' and resource 'tool details', making the purpose understandable. However, it's vague about what 'details' include and doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'list_tools' or 'get_tool_servers' beyond the singular vs. plural distinction. It avoids tautology by not just restating the name 'get_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. It doesn't mention when to choose 'get_tool' over 'list_tools' for listing all tools, or 'get_tool_servers' for server information, nor does it specify prerequisites like needing a tool ID. Usage is implied only by the name and description, with no explicit context or exclusions.

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