I have searched all existing open AND closed issues and discussions for similar requests. I have found none that is comparable to my request.
Problem Description
My setup is AWS Bedrock - LiteLLM -> OpenWebUI. It's mandatory to track each user`s spending via LiteLLM, MCPs are also configured via LiteLLM, and users need their LiteLLM API tokens to use the MCPs.
I'm lacking the ability to allow users to configure their own MCP servers in OpenWebUI "External Tools" - only OpenAPI is currently supported. MCP server configuration is supported via admin configuration, and it's enabled globally - the problem with global setup is that it uses a single bearer token. Therefore, I can't correctly assign the costs to the user who uses the token.
Desired Solution you'd like
Users are allowed to configure their own MCP servers via External Tools, just like global admin configuration:
Alternatives Considered
No response
Additional Context
No response
Originally created by @wilstdu on GitHub (Oct 20, 2025).
Original GitHub issue: https://github.com/open-webui/open-webui/issues/18453
### Check Existing Issues
- [x] I have searched all existing open AND closed issues and discussions for similar requests. I have found none that is comparable to my request.
### Problem Description
My setup is AWS Bedrock - LiteLLM -> OpenWebUI. It's mandatory to track each user`s spending via LiteLLM, MCPs are also configured via LiteLLM, and users need their LiteLLM API tokens to use the MCPs.
I'm lacking the ability to allow users to configure their own MCP servers in OpenWebUI "External Tools" - only OpenAPI is currently supported. MCP server configuration is supported via admin configuration, and it's enabled globally - the problem with global setup is that it uses a single bearer token. Therefore, I can't correctly assign the costs to the user who uses the token.
### Desired Solution you'd like
Users are allowed to configure their own MCP servers via External Tools, just like global admin configuration:
<img width="954" height="812" alt="Image" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/f4d46e83-8b79-4250-b7cf-dc8adcf237b4" />
### Alternatives Considered
_No response_
### Additional Context
_No response_
@tjbck Feels tad limiting on the user side, but at the same time admin should be the one allowing tools for users.
<!-- gh-comment-id:3453891069 -->
@marcinkubica commented on GitHub (Oct 28, 2025):
@tjbck Feels tad limiting on the user side, but at the same time admin should be the one allowing tools for users.
@tjbck why it's intended behaviour? Admins should decide if to allow that for users.
<!-- gh-comment-id:3526731438 -->
@wilstdu commented on GitHub (Nov 13, 2025):
@tjbck why it's intended behaviour? Admins should decide if to allow that for users.
Blocking a user prevents them from interacting with repositories, such as opening or commenting on pull requests or issues. Learn more about blocking a user.
Originally created by @wilstdu on GitHub (Oct 20, 2025).
Original GitHub issue: https://github.com/open-webui/open-webui/issues/18453
Check Existing Issues
Problem Description
My setup is AWS Bedrock - LiteLLM -> OpenWebUI. It's mandatory to track each user`s spending via LiteLLM, MCPs are also configured via LiteLLM, and users need their LiteLLM API tokens to use the MCPs.
I'm lacking the ability to allow users to configure their own MCP servers in OpenWebUI "External Tools" - only OpenAPI is currently supported. MCP server configuration is supported via admin configuration, and it's enabled globally - the problem with global setup is that it uses a single bearer token. Therefore, I can't correctly assign the costs to the user who uses the token.
Desired Solution you'd like
Users are allowed to configure their own MCP servers via External Tools, just like global admin configuration:
Alternatives Considered
No response
Additional Context
No response
@tjbck commented on GitHub (Oct 20, 2025):
Intended behaviour.
@marcinkubica commented on GitHub (Oct 28, 2025):
@tjbck Feels tad limiting on the user side, but at the same time admin should be the one allowing tools for users.
@wilstdu commented on GitHub (Nov 13, 2025):
@tjbck why it's intended behaviour? Admins should decide if to allow that for users.