Loading ToolBench
The server provides 8 tools with basic MCP registration using fastmcp, but falls significantly short of production-grade tool quality. All tools have descriptions (1-2 sentences), but they are minimal and lack the depth needed for LLM decision-making. Input schemas are present for most tools but are too simplistic, parameter descriptions are terse and lack validation guidance. Output schemas are entirely undocumented; tools return JSON strings but the structure is not specified anywhere in the code. Error handling is present (strings vs exceptions) but not actionable, responses like 'Error listing torrents: <raw error>' give no recovery guidance. No pagination support despite list_torrents returning unbounded results. The tool names follow verb_noun convention well (list_, download_, get_, delete_, start_, pause_, forget_), but many descriptions fail to explain WHY and WHEN to use each tool, making disambiguation hard for LLMs.
Delete a torrent and its files.
Download a torrent from a magnet link, HTTP URL, or local file.
Forget a torrent, keeping the files.
Get details for a specific torrent by its ID or infohash.
Get stats and status for a specific torrent by its ID or infohash.
List all torrents.
Pause a torrent.
Output schemas are entirely missing. No tool documents what structure it returns. Tools return JSON strings via dumps(result), but the structure of 'result' is never specified in code comments or docstrings. This forces LLMs to infer output format, leading to parsing errors and incorrect downstream tool calls.
Descriptions are too short and lack LLM-guiding context. Average description length is ~37 chars; baseline is 194 chars. Tool descriptions fail to answer: What does it do? When should the LLM call it instead of a similar tool? (e.g., get_torrent_details vs get_torrent_stats is ambiguous). What does it return? This violates pattern:tool-description and pattern:command-tool.
| Scored | Grade | Overall | Spec posture | Rubric |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-09-22 | F | 11 | <=2025-11-25 | v2 |
| 2026-03-09 | F | 32 | - | v1 |
Start (resume) a torrent.
Destructive tool (delete_torrent) lacks confirmation or dry-run pattern. The tool is marked DESTRUCTIVE but the description does not warn the LLM or suggest a confirmation step. pattern:confirmation-request requires that irreversible operations support dry-run or require explicit confirmation to prevent accidental deletion by agents.
Ambiguous tool pairs without clear distinction. get_torrent_details and get_torrent_stats are both queries on the same resource but lack descriptions explaining the difference. LLMs will conflate them, violating pattern:tool-clarity. Name pairs like this require explicit docstring guidance: 'Use this for metadata (name, size, creation date)' vs 'Use this for live status (peers, speed, ETA)'.
No pagination support on list_torrents. The tool accepts no parameters for limit, offset, or pagination cursor. If a user has hundreds of torrents, this tool will return all of them unbounded, violating pattern:paginated-result and causing context window exhaustion. The description does not warn of this limitation.
Error handling is not actionable. Error messages are raw strings (e.g., 'Error listing torrents: <raw error>') with no guidance for recovery. pattern:recovery-guide requires errors to tell the LLM what to do next (retry, try a different tool, ask the user). The code catches RqbitHTTPError but returns only the error string, not structured recovery information.
Idempotence not documented. Tools like start_torrent and pause_torrent may or may not be idempotent (is calling start on an already-running torrent safe?). pattern:idempotent-operation requires that agents know whether they can safely retry. No description declares idempotence or documents side effects of repeated calls.
Parameter descriptions are generic and lack validation guidance. 'Torrent ID or infohash' appears verbatim on 6 tools but provides no format constraints (length, character set, regex pattern). pattern:constrained-input and pattern:tool-description require that parameter descriptions include validation rules so LLMs can generate correct input without trial-and-error.