Loading ToolBench
A comprehensive MCP server for GCP BigQuery cost optimization, query analysis, and DataOps automation.
Server has 5 tools with basic schemas and descriptions, but significant gaps limit production readiness. Tool names lack clear action verbs (DetectCostAnomalies, GetBigQueryCostsTool, AnalyzeQueryCostTool use inconsistent patterns). Descriptions exist but are generic (10-50 chars for most). Parameter schemas are present with types and descriptions, but output schemas are not documented. Error handling is minimal, no recovery guidance or actionable error messages visible in source. The CreateOptimizationPRTool is a WRITE operation but lacks confirmation/dry-run pattern. No tool annotations (readOnlyHint/destructiveHint) despite clear risk levels declared.
Tool for analyzing individual query costs before execution
Tool for creating GitHub PRs with query optimizations
Tool for detecting cost anomalies using multiple ML techniques
Tool for retrieving and analyzing BigQuery costs
AI-powered query optimization using Claude and pattern-based techniques
Tool names lack consistent action verbs. 'DetectCostAnomalies' and 'GetBigQueryCostsTool' mix verb-noun with noun-only patterns. 'AnalyzeQueryCostTool' and 'OptimizeQueryTool' append 'Tool' suffix (redundant). LLMs rely on verb-first naming to infer intent.
Output schemas not documented. Tool descriptions state what they do but do not specify return structure, field names, or types. LLMs cannot plan downstream calls or extract required data without knowing response shape.
CreateOptimizationPRTool is a WRITE operation (creates GitHub PRs) but lacks confirmation/dry-run pattern. No evidence of pre-execution validation or user confirmation step. Agents can accidentally create unwanted PRs without safeguards.
Inferred effective spec: <=2025-11-25.
| Scored | Grade | Overall | Spec posture | Rubric |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-09-23 | F | 43 | <=2025-11-25 | v2 |
Tool descriptions are generic and under 100 chars. E.g., 'Tool for detecting cost anomalies using multiple ML techniques' does not explain WHEN to use it vs other tools, what prerequisites exist, or what the output enables. Descriptions should be 50-200 chars with clear intent.
No tool annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint) in schema. Risk levels are declared in metadata (READ_ONLY, WRITE) but not exposed to the MCP protocol. LLMs cannot reason about safety without annotations.