Any ACP agent. Every integration it can accept. Shown exactly as it is.
ACP Patchbay exposes 6 tools with minimal parameter schemas and sparse descriptions. All tools have empty input schemas (no properties, no required fields), which violates the schema requirement. Descriptions are present but generic (10-80 chars), below the 50-200 char baseline for LLM-optimized docs. The request_user_input tool has a more detailed schema, but the other 5 are read-only queries with no parameters, this limits their utility and makes them appear incomplete. No output schemas are documented. Error handling and recovery guidance are absent. The tools are well-named (verb_noun pattern) but lack the depth needed for production-grade agent integration.
The active editor's file path and live content (including unsaved changes).
Current problems (errors, warnings) across the workspace.
Paths of all currently open editor tabs, with unsaved-changes status.
The user's current editor selection: file, line range, and text. Empty if nothing is selected.
A combined snapshot: open editors, diagnostics, and current selection.
Ask the user a question with a small structured form (elicitation fallback — works with every agent regardless of native ACP elicitation support).
All 5 read-only tools have empty input schemas (no properties, no required fields).
Tool descriptions are 10 - 80 characters, well below the 50 - 200 char baseline for LLM-optimized docs. Descriptions lack context on WHEN to use each tool and what distinguishes them from similar tools.
No output schemas documented for any tool. LLMs cannot plan downstream calls or extract required fields without knowing the response structure.
Inferred effective spec: <=2025-11-25.
| Scored | Grade | Overall | Spec posture | Rubric |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-09-23 | F | 46 | <=2025-11-25 | v2 |
No error handling or recovery guidance. Tools do not document failure modes, retryability, or what the agent should do if a call fails.
request_user_input parameter 'properties' is an array of objects but lacks individual field descriptions. The 'type' enum is present but 'title' and 'description' fields are not documented as required or optional.