Loading ToolBench
This server demonstrates solid definition practices with all 7 tools having explicit schemas and descriptions. Naming follows verb_noun conventions consistently (create_, list_, get_, update_, delete_, duplicate_). However, there are notable gaps: parameter descriptions are minimal (5-15 chars), output schemas lack documentation of response structure in tool definitions, and error handling guidance is absent. The tools are well-organized around a single domain (BuilderBot projects) with clear CRUD operations, but descriptions could be more LLM-optimized (currently 15-70 chars vs the 50-200 char baseline for A-grade tools). No evidence of pagination, rate limiting guidance, or recovery hints in error scenarios.
Create a new BuilderBot project
Returns the current time as ISO and localized strings.
Delete a BuilderBot project and all its associated resources
Duplicate an existing BuilderBot project with a new name
Get a specific BuilderBot project by its ID
List all BuilderBot projects for the authenticated user
Parameter descriptions are too brief (5-15 chars), LLMs cannot infer constraints, format expectations, or valid value ranges from such minimal text. E.g., 'Locale passed to Intl.DateTimeFormat' (42 chars) lacks guidance on format and valid values. Baseline for A-grade tools is 72+ chars per parameter.
Tool descriptions lack WHEN-to-use guidance and prerequisites. Descriptions are purely functional (15-70 chars, mostly <100) rather than LLM-optimized for selection context. E.g., 'List all BuilderBot projects for the authenticated user' doesn't explain when to call this vs. other discovery tools, or what the user can do with the results. Baseline is 50-200 chars with explicit selection hints.
| Scored | Grade | Overall | Spec posture | Rubric |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-09-22 | C | 66 | 2025-06-18+ | v2 |
| 2026-03-09 | F | 0 | - | v1 |
Update an existing BuilderBot project
No error handling guidance visible. Destructive operation (delete_builderbot_project) lacks confirmation pattern or recovery hints. Mutating operations (create, update, delete, duplicate) don't document what to do if they fail, or how the agent should react. This violates the recovery-guide and error-classification patterns.
list_builderbot_projects provides no pagination parameters (limit, offset, page_size) and returns all results, risking context-window exhaustion. No cursor, offset, or page_size guidance documented. Baseline requires paginated-result pattern for list tools.
Parameter 'projectId' appears in 5 tools but is described identically with minimal text ('The UUID of the project...'). No guidance on format validation, length, or what to do if ID is invalid. Should include format hint: e.g., 'UUID format (e.g., 550e8400-e29b-41d4-a716-446655440000)'.
Output schemas for list_builderbot_projects and other tools are inferred from code but not explicitly documented in tool definitions. Response shape (array of projects vs. paginated wrapper) is unclear from the visible definitions. The execute() function returns structured data, but the LLM cannot see the full response schema to plan chaining.
Destructive operations (delete_builderbot_project) lack a dry-run or confirmation step. Agents make mistakes, calling delete without confirmation invites accidental data loss. No confirmation-request pattern implemented.