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. 'Update' implies a mutation operation, but the description doesn't address critical behavioral aspects: what permissions are required, whether updates are reversible, if partial updates are allowed (name OR code), what happens when null values are provided, or what the output contains. This leaves significant gaps for safe tool invocation.

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 extremely concise at just 5 words, front-loading the essential information with zero wasted words. Every word earns its place: 'Update' (action), 'a function's' (resource), 'name or code' (what can be modified). This is a model of efficiency despite being under-specified.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and multiple sibling update tools, the description is inadequate. While an output schema exists (which helps), the description doesn't address critical context: authentication requirements, error conditions, whether both name and content can be updated simultaneously, or how this differs from other function-related tools. The agent lacks sufficient information for confident tool selection and invocation.

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 description mentions updating 'name or code,' which aligns with the schema's 'name' and 'content' parameters. However, with 0% schema description coverage, the schema provides only basic parameter names and types without semantic context. The description adds minimal value by indicating what can be updated but doesn't explain parameter relationships, constraints, or the required function_id parameter's role.

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 ('Update') and target resource ('a function's name or code'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling update tools like update_channel, update_file_content, or update_model, which all follow similar 'update [resource]' patterns.

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. There's no mention of prerequisites (like needing an existing function), when not to use it, or how it differs from related tools like toggle_function or create_function. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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