Loading ToolBench
Automatically generates MCP servers from TypeSpec specifications. Converts TypeSpec models into MCP tools with list, get, create, update, and delete operations.
This MCP server exhibits critical definition quality gaps that would fail production review. All 5 tools have extremely generic, non-descriptive names (list, get, create, update, delete) that violate the verb_noun naming convention and provide zero semantic information about what resources they operate on. Descriptions are uniformly bare minimum (10-30 chars), providing no context for LLM tool selection. Parameters lack descriptions entirely (e.g., 'id' has a description but 'create' and 'list' have empty properties with no descriptions of what fields they accept or what data they return). No output schemas are documented, forcing LLMs to guess at response structure. Error handling is absent from all tools. The tools appear to be generated from a generic CRUD template without domain-specific customization. Evidence: All tool names are single words without context; descriptions do not answer WHAT the tool does or WHEN to use it vs alternatives; input schemas lack parameter descriptions; no output schema documentation visible.
Create a new item
Delete an item by ID
Get a single item by ID
List all items of a resource type
Update an existing item
Tool names lack semantic domain context. 'list', 'get', 'create', 'update', 'delete' are generic CRUD verbs that do not indicate what resource is being operated on (e.g., 'list_channels', 'get_user', 'create_ticket'). LLMs cannot disambiguate these tools when multiple resources exist in the same server.
Descriptions are below the 10-1024 character baseline and provide no context. 'List all items of a resource type' (36 chars) does not explain WHAT resource type, WHEN to call this vs a search_* tool, or WHAT structure is returned. According to pattern:tool-description, every description must answer: What does it do? When should I use it? What does it return?
Parameters lack descriptions. The 'create' and 'list' tools have empty input schemas ({}), providing no guidance on what fields are required or optional. 'id' in get/update/delete has a description, but this is the minimum acceptable; all other parameters are absent or undocumented. Per pattern:tool-description, every parameter needs a description explaining what it controls.
| Scored | Grade | Overall | Spec posture | Rubric |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-09-22 | F | 21 | 2026-07-28+ | v2 |
| 2026-03-09 | F | 0 | - | v1 |
No output schemas are documented. The source code shows tool names and input schemas only; there is no visible documentation of what fields each tool returns. Per pattern:tool and pattern:response-shaper, LLMs need to know what fields to expect so they can plan downstream tool calls and extract the right data.
No error handling guidance. There is no visible recovery information, error classification (retryable vs user-fixable vs fatal), or actionable error messages. Per pattern:recovery-guide, error responses must tell the LLM what to do next, not just return a code or stack trace.
Destructive operations (delete) lack confirmation or dry-run support. Per pattern:confirmation-request, irreversible operations should support a dry-run or confirmation step to prevent catastrophic errors when agents make mistakes.
Risk levels assigned (DELETE is DESTRUCTIVE) but no corresponding tool structure to support safe confirmation or rollback. The tool definition does not expose a confirmation mechanism or undo path.
No composition guidance. With only generic CRUD tools and no resource context, there is no documentation of which tools chain together, what IDs must flow between responses and parameters, or how to discover available resources. Per pattern:tool-chain, tool A's output must contain the IDs tool B needs.