Loading ToolBench
The server defines a single tool 'add_numbers' with minimal quality. The tool has a verb-starting name (add_) which is correct, but lacks a description entirely. Input parameters 'a' and 'b' have type declarations (number) via Zod schema but both have null descriptions, failing the critical requirement that every parameter have a description. The tool lacks any documentation of what it does, when to use it, or what it returns. Output is hardcoded as a simple text response with no schema documentation. Error handling is absent, no validation, no recovery guidance, no error categorization. This is a minimal proof-of-concept that would not pass production code review.
Tool 'add_numbers' has no description at all. LLMs cannot determine when or why to select this tool without explicit documentation of its purpose, use cases, and return value.
All input parameters lack descriptions. Parameters 'a' and 'b' have null descriptions. The parameter description field is mandatory, LLMs cannot infer that 'a' and 'b' are operands for arithmetic addition without explicit text.
Output schema is not documented. The tool returns a hardcoded text response with type 'text', but there is no schema definition, field listing, or documentation of the response structure. LLMs cannot plan downstream tool calls or extract typed data without knowing the output schema.
No error handling or validation. The tool does not validate numeric inputs, handle edge cases (NaN, Infinity, overflow), or provide actionable error messages if something goes wrong. LLMs receive no guidance on how to recover from failures.
| Scored | Grade | Overall | Spec posture | Rubric |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-09-23 | F | 34 | 2026-07-28+ | v2 |