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 'List all prompt templates' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination, sorting, filtering, rate limits, permissions required, or what 'all' entails (e.g., archived items). For a list operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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 ('List all prompt templates') with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded and directly conveys the core action, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 simplicity (0 parameters, output schema exists), the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It lacks behavioral context (e.g., output format hints, limitations), which is needed since no annotations are provided. The output schema may cover return values, but the description doesn't add enough beyond the name to fully guide usage.

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. Baseline is 4 for zero parameters, as the schema fully covers the absence of inputs.

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 all prompt templates' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('prompt templates'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_prompt' (singular) and 'create_prompt' (creation), though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other list operations like 'list_tools' or 'list_models'.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, timing considerations, or how it differs from other listing tools (e.g., 'list_templates' if existed). Usage is implied by the name alone, lacking explicit context or exclusions.

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