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. 'List your chats' implies a read-only operation but doesn't specify details like pagination, sorting, filtering, authentication needs, rate limits, or what 'your' means (e.g., current user's chats). This leaves significant gaps for a tool with potential behavioral complexity.

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 'List your chats' is extremely concise—three words that directly convey the core action. It's front-loaded with the verb and resource, with zero wasted words, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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 0 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. However, as a list operation with no annotations, it lacks context on behavior (e.g., scope, limits, or format), which could be important for an AI agent to use it effectively. It meets basic needs but has clear gaps 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?

The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate here. A baseline of 4 is applied since the schema fully covers the absence of parameters, and the description doesn't need to compensate.

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 'List your chats' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('your chats'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_chat' (which retrieves a specific chat) or 'list_channels' (which lists channels rather than chats), so it misses full sibling distinction.

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. With siblings like 'get_chat' (for specific chats) and 'list_channels' (for channels), there's no indication of context, exclusions, or prerequisites for choosing this tool over others.

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