MCP Server for Attention Sink Preservation and Sliding Window KV Cache Eviction with zero external dependencies
Single tool with minimal definition quality. Tool name 'append_streaming_token' lacks action clarity (append vs add?). Description is 82 chars but lacks WHEN/WHY context for LLM selection. Input schema present but parameters lack descriptions entirely, 'token_id' and 'text' have no guidance on format, constraints, or purpose. No output schema documented. No error handling guidance. No parameter validation rules stated. Fails multiple critical checks from rubric section B (descriptions) and C (parameters).
Append token to streaming KV cache with attention sink management.
Parameters lack descriptions. 'token_id' and 'text' have no guidance on format, range, or purpose. LLMs cannot infer whether token_id is a unique counter, a vocabulary index, or a session-scoped ID.
No output schema documented. Tool returns cache_stats JSON but LLM has no advance knowledge of response structure (fields, types, ranges). Prevents downstream tool chaining and forces LLM to parse unstructured output.
Tool description (82 chars) lacks WHEN/WHY context. Does not explain when to call this vs other cache operations, what 'attention sink' means, or what prerequisites exist. LLM cannot determine if this is the right tool for the task.
No error handling guidance. Tool silently succeeds or fails with no recovery hints. If token_id is invalid or duplicate, LLM receives no actionable error message.
| Scored | Grade | Overall | Spec posture | Rubric |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-09-23 | F | 36 | 2026-07-28+ | v2 |
Tool name 'append_streaming_token' is ambiguous. Does 'append' mean add to cache, enqueue for processing, or stream to output? Verb clarity is weak compared to baseline 'add_token' or 'cache_token'.