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. 'Rename a folder' implies a mutation operation, but it doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether the rename is reversible, error conditions (e.g., invalid ID or duplicate names), or side effects. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand 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 with zero waste—'Rename a folder' is front-loaded and directly conveys the core action. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, with no extraneous information.

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 object containing 2 sub-parameters) and the presence of an output schema (which reduces need to describe returns), the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, it lacks details on permissions, errors, or constraints, making it incomplete for safe agent use.

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 adds minimal semantic value. 'Rename a folder' implies parameters for folder identification and new name, aligning with the schema's 'folder_id' and 'name'. However, it doesn't explain parameter formats (e.g., ID structure or name constraints) or usage details. With 0% coverage, the description partially compensates but not fully.

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 'Rename a folder' clearly states the verb (rename) and resource (folder), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_folder' or 'delete_folder' by specifying the update action. However, it doesn't mention that this only handles name changes versus other folder properties, which could be clarified.

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 an existing folder ID), exclusions (e.g., not for creating or deleting folders), or comparisons to siblings like 'update_folder' (if it exists for other updates). Usage is implied from the name but not explicitly stated.

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