Loading ToolBench
MCP server for filesystem search and manipulation with granular search, content search and file edits
This filesystem server presents mixed quality. Tool naming is verb-forward and clear (read_file, write_file, list_directory). Descriptions exist for all 11 tools and are substantive (ranging from 40-100 chars), meeting the minimum bar. Input schemas are properly structured with JSON Schema format, types, and descriptions on all parameters. However, several critical gaps prevent a higher score: (1) no output schemas are documented, the LLM has no visibility into what fields are returned from each tool, (2) no error handling guidance in descriptions, (3) no discussion of safety/confirmation for destructive operations, (4) parameters lack granular constraints (min/max for line counts, allowed glob patterns, format specifics), and (5) descriptions are generic rather than LLM-optimized (e.g., 'Get a detailed listing' could explain when to use it vs. head_file/tail_file). The write_file tool accepts create_dirs but no validation guidance on path traversal risks. Overall, this is a solid technical implementation but falls short of production-grade tool definition standards.
Create a new directory or ensure a directory exists.
Make line-based edits to a text file.
Retrieve detailed metadata about a file or directory.
Read the first N lines of a text file.
Returns the list of directories that this server is allowed to access.
Get a detailed listing of files and directories in a path.
Move or rename files and directories.
No documented output schemas for any tool. LLMs cannot determine what fields are returned from read_file, list_directory, get_file_info, etc. This forces agents to guess at response structure and blocks downstream tool chaining.
Destructive operations (write_file, move_file, edit_file) lack safety guidance. No mention of dry-run fallback, confirmation steps, or irreversibility warnings in descriptions. Agents cannot reason about side effects.
Error handling guidance missing from all tool descriptions. No recovery hints (e.g., 'If file not found, check permissions or list parent directory'). Descriptions do not explain which errors are retryable vs. user-fixable.
Inferred effective spec: <=2025-11-25.
| Scored | Grade | Overall | Spec posture | Rubric |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-09-22 | D | 58 | <=2025-11-25 | v2 |
| 2026-03-09 | F | 0 | - | v1 |
Read the complete contents of a file.
Read multiple files at once.
Read the last N lines of a text file.
Create a new file or overwrite an existing file with new content.
Parameter constraints lack granularity. 'lines' in head_file and tail_file have no documented min/max. 'encoding' accepts free-form strings with no enum of supported codecs. 'pattern' in list_directory provides no guidance on glob syntax or escaping.
Descriptions are generic and do not explain selection rationale vs. similar tools. E.g., why choose list_directory over head_file? When is get_file_info preferable to read_file? LLMs need explicit guidance on tool selection.
Path traversal and security implications not mentioned. write_file and move_file accept arbitrary paths. No guidance on sandboxing, allowed directories, or how path_allowed_directories constrains operations.