Loading ToolBench
MCP server for vector database operations supporting Pinecone, Weaviate, Qdrant, and ChromaDB
Server has 6 well-structured vector database tools with reasonable naming (all verb_noun format) and complete input schemas. However, descriptions are generic and lack LLM-optimization guidance. Parameter descriptions are minimal (often just repeating the parameter name). Output schemas are not documented, callers must infer structure from implementation. No error handling guidance. Tool descriptions average ~90 chars (below 194-char baseline), and parameter descriptions average ~40 chars (well below 72-char baseline). Security: credentials properly injected via env vars (good), but no audit trail or permission gates. Composition is clean, each tool has one responsibility, and tools chain well (e.g., create_collection → upsert_vectors → query_vectors).
Create a new vector collection with specified dimensions and distance metric
Delete vectors from a collection by their IDs
Get statistics and information about a specific vector collection
List all vector collections available in the configured provider
Query similar vectors from a collection using a vector or embedding
Insert or update vectors in a collection with optional metadata
Output schemas not documented. Callers cannot infer the structure of responses (e.g., what fields does query_vectors return? What type is 'score'?). LLMs must guess from implementation, risking errors in downstream tool chaining.
Parameter descriptions are minimal and lack format/constraint guidance. E.g., 'topK' says 'Number of results to return. Defaults to 10.' but omits valid range (is 1-1000 valid? 1-100?). 'metric' in create_collection lists options but doesn't explain when to use each. LLMs cannot validate input without explicit constraints.
Tool descriptions lack context about when to call each tool and what they return. E.g., 'Insert or update vectors in a collection with optional metadata' does not tell an LLM: What does the response contain? What happens if the collection doesn't exist? Should I call create_collection first? Description should answer: WHAT, WHEN, WHY, and prerequisites.
| Scored | Grade | Overall | Spec posture | Rubric |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-09-22 | C | 62 | 2026-07-28+ | v2 |
| 2026-03-09 | F | 41 | - | v1 |
No error handling guidance. What does the LLM do if 'collection not found'? If vector dimension mismatches? If the provider is unreachable? Tool descriptions should guide recovery: 'Call list_collections() to see available collections' or 'Retry with exponential backoff if provider is unreachable'.
delete_vectors is destructive but lacks confirmation/dry-run support. An agent could accidentally delete all vectors in a collection. Destructive tools should support a dry_run parameter or require explicit confirmation.
No tool annotations. The protocol supports readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, and idempotentHint to let clients UI/UX appropriately and warn agents before executing. upsert_vectors and create_collection should be marked destructiveHint=false (they are safe), but delete_vectors and create_collection (overwrites) should be destructiveHint=true.
list_collections and get_collection_stats return minimal data (chromadb provider returns dimension=0 for all collections, count=0 for list). This is incomplete and unhelpful for agents planning vector operations. Should return actual vector counts and dimensions or clarify why they are unavailable.
No pagination support. query_vectors accepts topK but does not support offset/cursor-based pagination. If an agent needs to iterate through large result sets, it cannot without re-running the query with different topK values. Production vector DBs often need pagination.
No audit trail or permission gates. Tools lack logging of who called what, when, and what happened. For compliance and security, destructive and sensitive tools should verify caller permissions and log actions.