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. It mentions listing memories but fails to describe key traits such as pagination, sorting, authentication requirements, rate limits, or what 'all' entails (e.g., if it returns everything at once). For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap, scoring a 2.

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 with no wasted words, clearly front-loading the core action. It is appropriately sized for a simple list operation, earning a perfect score for conciseness and structure.

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) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally complete. However, it lacks behavioral context (e.g., how memories are presented or limitations), and with no annotations, it should provide more guidance on usage. This results in an adequate but gapped score of 3.

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, meaning no parameters are documented in the schema. The description does not add parameter details, but since there are no parameters, this is acceptable. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as the description need not compensate for missing param info.

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 ('all your stored memories'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'query_memories' (which likely filters) and 'delete_memory' (which modifies), though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. This is clear but lacks explicit sibling differentiation, warranting a 4.

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 like 'query_memories' or 'delete_memory', nor does it mention any prerequisites or context for usage. It simply states what the tool does without indicating appropriate scenarios, resulting in a score of 2 for minimal guidance.

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