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 mentions 'ADMIN ONLY,' hinting at authorization needs, but lacks details on rate limits, error handling, or what 'details' include. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is insufficient, as it doesn't fully disclose behavioral traits beyond basic access control.

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 with two sentences that are front-loaded and waste no words. Every part ('Get details for a specific user' and 'ADMIN ONLY') adds essential value without redundancy.

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 (one parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, it lacks details on authorization depth and parameter semantics, making it incomplete for full agent understanding.

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%, with one parameter ('user_id') undocumented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information, such as format examples or constraints, failing to compensate for the low coverage. This leaves the parameter meaning unclear beyond its name.

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 ('details for a specific user'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_current_user' or 'list_users' beyond the 'specific user' aspect, which is why it doesn't reach a 5.

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 includes 'ADMIN ONLY,' which provides clear context about when to use this tool (i.e., only with admin privileges). It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like 'get_current_user' for non-admin scenarios, so it falls short of a 5.

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