Open WebUI MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination, sorting, filtering options, rate limits, permissions required, or what 'all folders' entails (e.g., includes subfolders, excludes deleted ones). This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand operational 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 core purpose ('List all folders') and adds clarifying context ('for organizing chats'). There is no wasted verbiage or redundancy, 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's low complexity (0 parameters, simple list operation) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks completeness in usage guidelines and behavioral transparency, which are notable gaps despite the structured support.

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?

There are 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate here, but it also doesn't compensate for any gaps since none exist. A baseline of 4 is applied as it meets minimal requirements without error.

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 ('List') and resource ('folders'), specifying their purpose ('for organizing chats'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_folder' (singular retrieval) and 'create_folder' (creation), but doesn't explicitly contrast with other list tools like 'list_chats' or 'list_files'.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication), context (e.g., workspace scope), or exclusions (e.g., archived folders). The description implies usage for chat organization but lacks explicit instructions.

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