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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Update' implies a mutation, but doesn't cover permissions required, side effects (e.g., if updates affect other systems), error handling, or response format. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse. Every word earns its place by specifying what can be updated.

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 with 1 parameter but nested object properties), no annotations, and an output schema present (which reduces need to describe returns), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks usage guidelines, behavioral details, and full parameter context, leaving gaps for effective 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?

The description adds meaningful context beyond the input schema. The schema has 0% description coverage (only parameter names like 'tool_id', 'name', 'content'), but the description clarifies that 'name' and 'code' are updatable fields, providing semantics that the schema lacks. However, it doesn't detail the 'tool_id' parameter or optional/null behavior.

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 ('a tool's name or code'), making the purpose unambiguous. It specifies what can be updated (name or code), which is helpful. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_tool' or 'delete_tool', though the verb 'Update' inherently suggests modification rather than creation or deletion.

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 tool), exclusions (e.g., what cannot be updated), or comparisons to siblings like 'create_tool' or 'delete_tool'. This leaves the agent without context for tool selection.

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