Loading ToolBench
An thinking and reasoning engine for the Model Context Protocol (MCP).
Single tool 'thinkseq' has a clear verb-noun name and acceptable description (89 chars). Input schema is present with 4 parameters, all typed. However, critical gaps exist: parameter descriptions are minimal (10-40 chars, well below the 72-char baseline); no output schema is documented; no error handling guidance; no indication of idempotency or side effects despite the tool modifying state (processing thoughts in a thinking engine). The tool lacks the structured output documentation and recovery patterns expected of production tools.
Process a thought in the thinking engine with support for sequential thinking and revision
Parameter descriptions are too brief (10-40 chars vs 72-char baseline). 'The thought content to process' and 'Total number of thoughts expected in this sequence' lack actionable detail on format, constraints, or dependencies.
No output schema documented. LLMs cannot plan downstream calls or extract results without knowing what fields the tool returns. This violates the pattern:tool requirement.
No error handling guidance. Tool description does not explain what happens on invalid input, session conflicts, or resource exhaustion. LLMs have no recovery path.
State-modifying tool lacks idempotency declaration. 'revisesThought' parameter suggests the tool can modify prior state, but no documentation clarifies whether repeated calls with the same input are safe or produce duplicates.
Inferred effective spec: <=2025-11-25.
| Scored | Grade | Overall | Spec posture | Rubric |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-09-23 | F | 47 | <=2025-11-25 | v2 |
Parameter constraints missing. 'totalThoughts' is a number with no min/max bounds; 'sessionId' has no format guidance; 'revisesThought' has no validation rules. Unbounded inputs invite invalid LLM calls.