Loading ToolBench
genify exposes 5 tools for code generation and templating. All tools are explicitly registered in src/mcp.rs with names, descriptions, and input schemas. However, the definitions have significant gaps: descriptions are generic and lack actionable guidance for LLM selection; input schemas lack required/optional field declarations and parameter-level descriptions; no output schemas are documented; error handling provides no recovery guidance. The tool names follow verb_noun convention (genify_plan, genify_apply, genify_validate_config) which is correct, but parameter schemas are minimally described. None of the tools include enum constraints, format specifications, or per-parameter guidance. This is typical of a C-tier community tool, functional but not production-ready.
Apply genify changes - Apply generated changes to disk. Requires explicit_approval=true or confirm_token="apply".
Diff genify changes - Render the JSON genify config in dry-run mode and return a unified diff.
List available templates - List all template files found in the accessible filesystem.
Plan genify changes - Return the file operations genify would perform without modifying disk.
Validate genify config - Validate a JSON genify config and rendered output paths without applying changes.
Input schemas lack per-parameter descriptions. The 'config' parameter accepts an object but provides no guidance on its structure, required fields, or validation rules. LLMs cannot infer what shape genify expects without reading the implementation.
Tool descriptions are too generic. 'Plan genify changes - Return the file operations genify would perform without modifying disk' does not explain when to use genify_plan vs genify_diff, what structure config must have, or how to construct props_overrides. Average description length ~110 chars; target 50-200.
No output schemas documented. The tools return file operation lists, diffs, validation results, and template lists, but no schema describing what fields, types, and structure the response contains. LLMs cannot plan follow-up calls or extract required data.
| Scored | Grade | Overall | Spec posture | Rubric |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-09-23 | F | 49 | 2025-06-18+ | v2 |
Parameters accept broad types without enum constraints or format specifications. 'config_file' accepts 'path to a config file or http(s) URL' but no regex pattern, length limit, or enum of valid file types. 'config_url' duplicates functionality of config_file without clear differentiation. LLMs will struggle to distinguish when to use which.
genify_apply requires explicit approval via 'explicit_approval=true' OR 'confirm_token="apply"'. This dual-parameter design is ambiguous, LLMs do not know which to prefer. A single confirmation mechanism (e.g. confirmation_token_required) with clear guidance is required.
No error handling guidance. Descriptions do not explain what errors are possible (invalid config, file not found, permission denied, disk full), which are retryable, or what the LLM should do next. Error responses from the implementation likely include raw Rust error types without recovery context.
Parameters 'config_file' and 'config_url' are functionally overlapping. The descriptions indicate that config_file can be a URL, making config_url redundant and confusing. Parameter naming does not disambiguate, LLMs will waste reasoning deciding between them.