Loading ToolBench
MCP server for document management with reading, editing, formatting, and resource listing capabilities
DocumentMCP presents significant definition quality gaps across both tools. While schemas are visible and tool registration is explicit via FastMCP decorators, descriptions are generic, parameters lack depth, and error handling is minimal. The server follows a simple in-memory document model with basic CRUD semantics, but the definitions do not meet production quality baselines.
Edit a document by replacing a string in the documents contenet with a new string
Read the contents of a document and return it as a string
Both tools lack documented output schemas. LLMs cannot determine return types, field names, or structure, forcing them to guess or infer from tool name alone.
edit_document description is vague and contains a typo ('contenet'). Does not declare that the tool is destructive/irreversible or explain behavior when old_string is not found. No error guidance.
edit_document lacks error handling guidance. No documentation of what happens if old_string does not match, is ambiguous (multiple occurrences), or if doc_id is invalid beyond basic ValueError.
Parameter descriptions are minimal and lack constraints. E.g., doc_id description ('Id of the document to read') does not enumerate valid doc_id values, format, or how to discover available documents without calling list_docs resource separately.
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 | 40 | - | v1 |
Tool descriptions are 40 - 78 characters, well below the 194-char production baseline. Generic, lack actionable guidance on WHEN to use each tool or dependencies.
edit_document description contains a typo ('contenet' instead of 'content'), reducing clarity and professional polish.