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 full burden. It states the action ('List all knowledge bases') but lacks behavioral details such as pagination, sorting, rate limits, permissions required, or error conditions. This is inadequate for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 action ('List all knowledge bases') and specifies the returned data. 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 0 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema, the description covers the basic purpose adequately. However, with no annotations and a list operation that might involve behavioral nuances (e.g., large datasets, permissions), it lacks completeness for safe and effective use by an AI agent.

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 with 100% schema description coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate, but it could mention optional filters or scoping if applicable—though not required, this keeps it from a perfect score.

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 ('List') and resource ('knowledge bases'), specifying what information is returned ('IDs, names, and descriptions'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_knowledge_base' (singular retrieval) but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list tools like 'list_channels' or 'list_users' beyond the resource type.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication), compare with 'get_knowledge_base' for single-item retrieval, or specify scenarios like initial setup versus ongoing monitoring.

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