Loading ToolBench
MCP server for RoboParts — 798 humanoid robot component entities across 20 categories with compatibility, mechanical interface and parameter-comparability data. Vendor-neutral: we neither manufacture nor resell any part.
RoboParts defines 10 tools with consistent naming (verb_noun pattern: search_, get_, check_, recommend_, compare_, review_) and reasonable descriptions (80-180 chars). All tools are READ_ONLY, reducing security risk. However, parameter descriptions are sparse or missing entirely for many inputs. Input schemas are present but lack depth, most parameters have type and description, but constraints (enums, ranges, patterns) are absent. Output schemas are not documented. Error handling guidance is not visible in the tool definitions. The server targets a specialized domain (robotics compatibility) with well-scoped tools, but lacks the rigor expected for production agent integration.
Check compatibility of all components in a Bill of Materials (BOM) assembly
Check compatibility between two robot components across protocol, electrical, mechanical, and ROS2 dimensions
Compare specifications and compatibility of multiple robot components side-by-side
Get detailed information about a specific robot component by ID
Get semantic information about component parameters and their meanings
Get audit information about standard conformance and compliance declarations for a component
Get component recommendations for a specific robotics application or use case
Output schemas not documented. LLMs cannot plan downstream tool calls or extract required fields (e.g., what does search_components return? Is it an array of objects? What fields does each object contain?). This forces agents to guess at response structure.
Parameter constraints missing. 'limit' parameters lack min/max bounds (e.g., search_components.limit has no stated range, can an agent pass 10000?). 'dimensions' in check_compatibility is an array but no enum of valid values is provided. 'constraints' in recommend_for_application is an object with no schema for its properties.
| Scored | Grade | Overall | Spec posture | Rubric |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-09-23 | D | 58 | 2026-07-28+ | v2 |
Get detailed review and reasoning for a compatibility decision between two components
Search robot components by keyword across all categories with optional filtering by category, type, and other attributes
Perform semantic similarity search to find components similar to a query or reference component
Error handling guidance absent. No tool description explains what happens on failure (e.g., if component_id is invalid, does the tool return 404 or an empty result? Should the agent retry or ask the user?). No recovery paths documented.
Parameter descriptions incomplete or vague. 'constraints' in recommend_for_application is described as 'Optional constraints (budget, power, size, etc.)', no schema, no type, no guidance on format. 'attributes' in compare_components similarly lacks detail on valid values.
No pagination guidance in tool descriptions. search_components and semantic_search accept 'limit' but do not document whether results are paginated, whether a cursor/offset is returned, or how to fetch the next page. Large result sets could exhaust context.