Loading ToolBench
Automatically generate protocol implementations from YAML specifications
Both tools have minimal descriptions (under 50 chars) and incomplete schemas. Tool names follow verb_noun convention but descriptions lack context on WHEN to use them, WHAT they return, or prerequisites. Input schemas are present but lack parameter descriptions, critical for LLM understanding. No output schema documented. Error handling is generic. This server appears to be a code-generation framework rather than a production MCP server; the two tools are test stubs with placeholder implementations.
Execute request operation on Finger protocol (RFC N/A)
Execute request operation on Gopher protocol (RFC N/A)
Tool descriptions are under 50 characters and lack actionable context. 'Execute request operation on Gopher protocol (RFC N/A)' does not explain WHEN to use this tool, WHAT it returns, or what the selector parameter controls.
Input schema parameter 'selector' (gopher_request) and 'username' (finger_request) lack descriptions. LLMs cannot infer what format, range, or constraints apply.
No output schema documented for either tool. LLMs cannot plan downstream calls or extract structured data. Rubric baseline: 100% of A+ tools have documented return types.
Tool implementations in tool-generator.js are placeholder stubs. Handler returns generic success message without actually executing protocol operations. This is a code-generation framework, not a functional MCP server.
| Scored | Grade | Overall | Spec posture | Rubric |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-09-23 | F | 37 | 2026-07-28+ | v2 |
No error classification or recovery guidance. Error responses are generic text without actionable next steps (e.g., 'Missing required field' does not suggest how to recover).