Loading ToolBench
Comprehensive platform for managing and monitoring MCP (Model Context Protocol) servers with AI-powered health monitoring, security management, and workflow automation
The server defines 3 tools with moderate schema quality but significant definition gaps. Tool names follow verb-noun convention (get_, restart_, diagnose_), which is positive. However, descriptions are present but lack depth for LLM reasoning. Input schemas are declared but lack parameter descriptions for most fields, violating the critical rule that every parameter must have a description. Output schemas are not documented at all. Error handling and recovery guidance are absent. The tools read descriptions from code comments ('Get comprehensive system health information...') but these lack actionable WHEN-to-use context and dependency hints. Most parameters have type definitions but lack field-level descriptions that would guide LLM usage.
AI-powered diagnosis of system issues with actionable recommendations
Get comprehensive system health information including MCP servers, resource usage, and AI insights
Restart a specific MCP server (requires appropriate permissions)
Missing parameter descriptions. All three tools have input schemas with typed properties, but most parameters (e.g., 'include_insights', 'include_metrics', 'server_filter', 'error_details') lack descriptions. The rubric critical check states: 'Every parameter needs a description explaining what it controls.' Without descriptions, LLMs cannot infer parameter semantics.
No output/return schema documentation. The tools do not document what they return. LLMs need to know: What fields are in the response? Are pagination, count, or next_cursor fields included? What downstream tools can use the output? This is a critical omission for tool chaining.
Shallow tool descriptions lacking WHEN context. Descriptions state WHAT tools do but omit WHEN to use them and prerequisites. For example, 'Get comprehensive system health information' does not explain when an LLM should call this vs diagnose_system_issue, or what insights are included. State WHAT the tool does, WHEN to use it, and any prerequisites.'
Inferred effective spec: <=2025-11-25.
| Scored | Grade | Overall | Spec posture | Rubric |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-09-22 | F | 45 | <=2025-11-25 | v2 |
| 2026-03-09 | F | 31 | - | v1 |
No error handling or recovery guidance. None of the tools document what errors can occur or what an LLM should do if a call fails.
Ambiguous parameters. 'error_details' in diagnose_system_issue is typed as object but has no schema, no description, and no guidance on what keys/values are expected. An LLM cannot reliably construct this without examples or format details.
restart_mcp_server accepts a 'reasoning' parameter with a default but no enum or validation. The default 'Manual restart requested' suggests this is descriptive text, but there is no guidance on valid formats, length, or constraints. This invites LLM hallucination.
No per-tool permission/scope declarations. The tools lack security metadata indicating what permissions (read:health, write:server, etc.) each requires.