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. 'Toggle' implies a mutation that changes state, but the description doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as permissions required, whether the change is reversible, side effects, or response format. This is a significant gap for a mutation 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 directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 complexity (a mutation operation), lack of annotations, and schema coverage of 0%, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects or parameter details. However, the presence of an output schema might help the agent understand return values, partially mitigating the gap.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, with one parameter ('function_id') undocumented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond implying a function is involved, so it doesn't compensate for the coverage gap. With one parameter, the baseline is 4, but the lack of semantic details reduces this to 3.

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 ('toggle') and the resource ('a function's enabled/disabled state'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_function' or 'delete_function', which could handle similar resources but with different operations.

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, context, or compare to sibling tools like 'update_function' or 'delete_function', leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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