Loading ToolBench
An open-source framework for building event-driven, multi-agent AI systems where specialized agents collaborate on complex tasks
The Solace Agent Mesh exposes only a single 'list' tool, which is a meta-tool for discovering other built-in tools rather than a functional capability itself. The tool has a basic description and input schema, but critical issues severely limit its utility: (1) The 'list' tool is a discovery/introspection tool, not an actionable agent tool, it does not perform domain work or advance user goals; (2) The description lacks context on WHEN to use it or WHY an agent would call it; (3) Input parameters have type annotations but descriptions are minimal and lack constraint details; (4) The tool's output schema is not documented, agents cannot predict what structure to expect when parsing results; (5) No error handling guidance is provided; (6) The tool only lists tools; it doesn't actually DO anything for an end user. This is a bootstrap problem: an MCP server needs tools that solve user problems, not just tools that describe other tools. From the rubric baseline of average 4 params per tool and 194 chars for descriptions, this 'list' tool provides neither sufficient real functionality nor sufficient quality in its single definition.
List all built-in tools available in Solace Agent Mesh. By default, shows brief information with tool names and descriptions. Use --detailed flag to see parameters and required scopes.
Single tool is meta-discovery only, not functional. 'list' introspects available tools but does not solve user problems. An MCP server must provide tools that agents use to accomplish goals, not just tools that describe other tools.
Tool description (98 chars) lacks explicit context on WHEN to use it. No guidance on prerequisites or typical usage patterns. Should state: 'Call this when building a discovery agent or documenting available capabilities. Returns brief or detailed tool metadata depending on --detailed flag.'
Output schema not documented. Agents cannot predict the structure of results (is it a list of objects? a table format? structured JSON?). Rubric requires: 'Document the output schema. LLMs need to know what fields to expect.'
| Scored | Grade | Overall | Spec posture | Rubric |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-09-22 | C | 62 | 2026-07-28+ | v2 |
| 2026-03-09 | C | 63 | - | v1 |
Parameter 'category' description (61 chars) is vague and lacks examples. Should specify: 'Filter by category name (string). Use available categories returned by calling list with --detailed. Example categories: artifact_management, data_analysis, workflow_orchestration. Pass empty string to disable filtering.'
No error handling guidance. What happens if category is invalid? If output format fails? Error responses must tell the agent what to do next (pattern:recovery-guide).
Tool is marked risk=READ_ONLY, which is correct, but no explicit documentation of this safety property in the description. Agents should know this is always safe to call and cannot cause side effects.