Loading ToolBench
MCP server for analyzing and optimizing Icecast streaming server configurations. Provides security audits, performance tuning, and best practice recommendations.
The server has one tool (analyze_icecast_config) with a clear purpose and documented input schema. Naming is verb-based and descriptive. However, the tool description, while present, lacks critical detail about output structure, use cases, and error scenarios. The input schema is well-formed with proper types and descriptions for parameters. The main deficiency is the absence of documented output schema, the tool returns ConfigIssue[] but this structure is not visible in the tool registration or documentation. Parameter descriptions are adequate but could be more specific about constraints and error cases. Error handling is minimal, no guidance on what happens if the config file is unreadable, malformed XML, or missing.
Analyze an Icecast XML configuration file and provide recommendations for improvements. Checks security, performance, capacity, and reliability settings.
Output schema not documented. The tool returns ConfigIssue[] but the response structure is not declared in the tool definition. LLMs cannot plan downstream actions or extract fields without knowing the response schema.
Tool description is too generic and lacks actionable context. It does not explain WHEN to call this tool, what dependencies exist (e.g., Icecast must be installed/config file must exist), or what the expected output looks like. Description should be 50 - 200 chars for LLM selection clarity; current description is adequate length but vague on prerequisites and typical output.
No error handling guidance. The tool does not declare what happens if the config file does not exist, is not readable, contains invalid XML, or fails validation. Error responses should tell the LLM what to do next (e.g., 'File not found. Verify the path and try again.'). Currently, no recovery hints are provided.
| Scored | Grade | Overall | Spec posture | Rubric |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-09-22 | D | 56 | 2026-07-28+ | v2 |
| 2026-03-09 | F | 0 | - | v1 |
Parameter 'expectedListeners' lacks validation constraints. The description says 'optional, default 100' but does not specify valid range (e.g., 1 - 10000, or must be positive). LLMs will pass invalid values (negative, zero, absurdly large) without explicit constraints.
Missing details about severity levels and issue categories in output. The code defines ConfigIssue with severity ('critical'|'warning'|'info') and category (string), but the tool description does not explain what these fields mean or how the LLM should interpret them (e.g., should it prioritize 'critical' issues? Will different categories appear in different use contexts?).