Loading ToolBench
MCP Server to provide context about MA Beaches and Beach Conditions.
This server has significant definition quality gaps across all four tools. While tool names are reasonable action-verb patterns (specific_beach_closure_tool, all_beach_closure_tool, location_to_geocode_tool, tide_time_acquisition_tool), descriptions are present but generic, and schemas are minimally documented. Most critically, parameter descriptions are either absent or trivial, output schemas are not formally documented, and error handling provides no recovery guidance. The server reads from a local CSV file without pagination or result limits, violates the natural-identifiers pattern by accepting fuzzy-matched beach names instead of IDs, and returns unstructured free-text responses instead of structured objects. The tool descriptions average ~100 characters but lack actionable context about WHEN to use each tool or dependencies between them.
Tool to check the status of all beaches in Massachusetts.
Tool to convert a location name provided as a string to latitude and longitude.
Tool to check if a specific beach in Massachusetts is closed, with fuzzy matching.
Tool to acquire tide times for a given latitude and longitude. Send the latitude and longitude as floats to the Marea API.
Parameter descriptions missing or trivial. Input schemas have parameter names but lack descriptions explaining what each controls. For example, 'location_to_geocode_tool' accepts 'location: string' with only 'The location name to geocode', no guidance on format (city only? 'City, State'? full address?), expected accuracy, or whether geocoding will succeed.
Output schemas not formally documented. All tools return free-text string responses instead of structured objects with typed fields. E.g., 'Coordinates for "loc": Latitude X, Longitude Y' requires the LLM to parse unstructured text to extract lat/lon values. Downstream tools expect floats; LLMs must reason about the extraction. This wastes tokens and invites parsing errors.
| Scored | Grade | Overall | Spec posture | Rubric |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-09-22 | F | 45 | 2026-07-28+ | v2 |
| 2026-03-09 | F | 29 | - | v1 |
No pagination or result limits on list operations. 'all_beach_closure_tool' returns all beaches in the CSV without pagination, no limit parameter, and no total count. If the closure table grows to hundreds or thousands of entries, the response will bloat the context window. No guidance on expected response size.
Error handling provides no recovery guidance. If 'location_to_geocode_tool' fails to geocode (e.g., 'Location not found'), the response is a bare error string with no suggestion of what to try next. If 'tide_time_acquisition_tool' hits a timeout or API error, no guidance on retry strategy or fallback. Agents cannot act on opaque failures.
Fuzzy matching without normalization or constraints. 'specific_beach_closure_tool' uses difflib with cutoff=0.61 to match beach names, which can produce unexpected results. E.g., 'Revere Beach' might fuzzy-match 'Reserve Beach' or 'Revere_Beach' variants. No way for an LLM to know which variant was matched or to correct the match. A discovery tool (e.g., 'list_beaches') should be offered first.
Tool descriptions lack WHEN and WHY context. E.g., 'Tool to check if a specific beach in Massachusetts is closed' does not explain when to use this tool vs 'all_beach_closure_tool', how freshness guarantees work (is the CSV live?), or whether closure is due to hazards, maintenance, or pollution. LLMs cannot decide which tool to select without dependency and selection criteria.
No tool composition or chaining hints. 'location_to_geocode_tool' and 'tide_time_acquisition_tool' are designed to chain (geocode first, then fetch tides), but neither tool description hints at this dependency. A user intent 'get tide times for Boston' should resolve with a single composed plan, but the descriptions force the LLM to infer the two-step sequence.
No idempotency guarantees. The tools do not declare whether repeated calls with the same input produce the same result. For 'location_to_geocode_tool', repeated calls to Nominatim with the same location should be idempotent, but the tool does not state this. Agents need idempotency info to decide whether it's safe to retry after a transient failure.