Open WebUI MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Update' implies a mutation, but it doesn't specify permissions required, whether changes are reversible, error handling, or rate limits. 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 with no wasted words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for its minimal content, making it structurally sound despite lacking detail.

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 mutation nature, no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and one required parameter, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain input semantics, behavioral traits, or usage context. The presence of an output schema helps but doesn't compensate for these gaps, making the overall context insufficient for effective tool selection.

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 by explaining parameters. It mentions 'prompt template' but doesn't detail the input structure (e.g., command, title, content) or their purposes. This leaves the single required parameter 'params' undocumented, failing to add meaningful semantics beyond the schema.

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 'Update a prompt template' clearly states the action (update) and resource (prompt template), which is better than a tautology. However, it doesn't specify what aspects can be updated or differentiate it from sibling tools like 'create_prompt' or 'delete_prompt', making it somewhat vague about scope and distinction.

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., an existing prompt to update), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'create_prompt' or 'delete_prompt', leaving usage context entirely implicit.

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