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 discloses the admin requirement, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it doesn't mention other aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, or what the output contains, leaving gaps in behavioral context.

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 purpose and key constraint ('ADMIN ONLY') with zero waste. Every word contributes essential information, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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, an output schema exists, and no annotations, the description is reasonably complete by stating the purpose and admin requirement. However, it could benefit from clarifying the scope (e.g., MCP vs. OpenAPI connections) or output format to fully compensate for the lack of annotations.

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, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter information is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, earning a high baseline score for not adding unnecessary details.

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 ('tool server connections'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this from potential sibling tools (like 'get_tool' or 'list_tools') that might handle different aspects of tools, so it lacks specific 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 explicit context with 'ADMIN ONLY', indicating when to use this tool based on user permissions. However, it doesn't specify when not to use it or name alternatives among the many sibling tools (e.g., 'get_tool' for individual tools), so guidance is clear but incomplete.

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