Open WebUI MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool makes a chat 'publicly accessible', implying a mutation with visibility changes, but doesn't cover permissions required, reversibility (e.g., can it be unshared?), rate limits, or what 'publicly accessible' entails (e.g., link generation, access controls). This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('share a chat') and includes a clarifying parenthetical. Every part of the sentence earns its place, 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 moderate complexity (a mutation with 1 parameter), no annotations, and an output schema (which reduces need to describe returns), the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks usage guidelines, parameter details, and behavioral context. It's minimally viable but has clear gaps that hinder full understanding.

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 1 parameter with 0% description coverage (only 'Chat ID' as a label). The description adds no information about the parameter, such as what a chat ID is, where to find it, or format requirements. With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving the parameter poorly documented.

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 ('share') and resource ('a chat'), specifying the action of making it publicly accessible. It distinguishes from siblings like 'archive_chat', 'clone_chat', and 'delete_chat' by focusing on sharing rather than other operations. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings, so it's not a perfect 5.

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 (e.g., needing a chat ID), exclusions, or comparisons to similar tools like 'update_channel' (which might involve sharing). This lack of contextual usage information limits its effectiveness for an AI agent.

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