Loading ToolBench
MCP server for working with Mantine UI components - provides documentation, generation, and theme utilities
This server has 6 tools with moderate-to-poor definition quality. All tools have names that start with action verbs (get_, search_, list_, generate_, create_), which is good. However, descriptions are minimal (mostly 10-50 chars), input schemas lack depth (missing descriptions for many parameters), and output schemas are not documented at all. Error handling guidance is absent. The codebase shows TypeScript types exist (MantineComponentDoc, ComponentGenerationConfig) but these are not exposed in the tool definitions visible in src/index.ts. Most critically, output schemas for what users will receive are completely undocumented, LLMs cannot plan downstream operations without knowing the structure of returned data. Tools score between 35-68, averaging 52.
Create a theme configuration for a specific component
Create a Mantine theme configuration
Generate a Mantine component
Get documentation for a Mantine component
List all available Mantine components
Search for Mantine components
Output schemas completely undocumented across all 6 tools. LLMs cannot determine what fields to expect in responses, making downstream tool chaining impossible and forcing extra discovery calls.
Tool descriptions are too generic and too short (27 - 51 chars). None explain WHEN to use the tool vs related tools (e.g., search_components vs list_components), what prerequisites exist, or what side effects occur. Baseline for A+ tools is 50 - 200 chars with context.
Complex parameters (props, styling, variants, definitions, customSelectors) are typed as 'object' or 'array' with no nested schema or description of expected structure. LLMs cannot construct valid input without reverse-engineering examples or making guesses.
| Scored | Grade | Overall | Spec posture | Rubric |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-09-22 | D | 56 | 2026-07-28+ | v2 |
| 2026-03-09 | F | 37 | - | v1 |
Tool risk labels appear inconsistent: create_theme_config and create_component_theme are marked risk=READ_ONLY despite being named 'create_*'. If these tools actually write files or modify state, the risk should be WRITE.
No error handling guidance in any tool. No recovery hints, no actionable error messages shown in code, no explanation of what errors are retryable vs user-fixable. A failed generate_component or create_theme_config leaves the LLM with no next step.
No pagination, limit, or result count documentation. list_components, search_components, and get_component_docs (with section=all) could return large results that exhaust context window, but no guidance on capping or paginating.
generate_component tool does not document that it has side effects (writes files). Description must explicitly state this is a WRITE operation so agents know it is not idempotent and has consequences.