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. It states this is an update operation, implying mutation, but lacks details on permissions, side effects, error handling, or response format. The description doesn't compensate for the absence of annotations, leaving behavioral traits unclear.

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 with 1 parameter but nested properties), no annotations, and an output schema present, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic action but lacks details on usage, behavioral traits, and full parameter semantics, relying on the output schema for return values.

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%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'name or description' as updatable fields, which aligns with the schema's 'name' and 'description' parameters, adding some semantic context. However, it doesn't explain the 'knowledge_id' parameter or the optional nature of 'name' and 'description', leaving gaps in parameter understanding.

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 resource ('knowledge base'), specifying what can be updated ('name or description'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_knowledge_base' (creation) and 'delete_knowledge_base' (deletion), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other update tools like 'update_model' or 'update_user_role'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing knowledge base), exclusions, or comparisons to other update tools in the sibling list, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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