Open WebUI MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is an update operation (implying mutation) but doesn't mention required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what happens when only partial fields are provided. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral unknowns.

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 gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple update operation and front-loads the essential information. Every word earns its place in this minimal description.

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 this is a mutation tool with no annotations but with an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally complete. It states what the tool does but lacks important context about permissions, side effects, and parameter details. The presence of an output schema prevents this from being a complete failure, but more behavioral context would be helpful.

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%, but the description mentions 'name or description' which maps to two of the three parameters in the nested ChannelUpdateParam object. However, it doesn't mention the required 'channel_id' parameter at all, nor does it explain that name and description can be null. The description adds some value but doesn't fully compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 ('Update') and resource ('a channel's name or description'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_folder' or 'update_group', but the specificity of 'channel' provides some distinction. The description avoids tautology by explaining what gets updated rather than just restating the name.

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 (like needing channel_id), when not to use it, or how it differs from similar tools like 'create_channel' or 'delete_channel'. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone, which is insufficient for optimal selection.

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