Loading ToolBench
MCP server for managing development context and workflow
Server has 17 tools with basic schemas and descriptions, but quality is inconsistent. All tools have descriptions (10-50 chars, mostly short), and input schemas are present with required fields marked. However, descriptions lack depth, most are single-clause statements without context on WHEN to use the tool or what it returns. Parameter descriptions are minimal (e.g., 'Project ID' with no format guidance). No output schemas documented. Error handling exists but is generic. Tool naming follows verb_noun convention (create_, get_, update_) which is good, but some names are ambiguous (e.g., 'update_work_package_status' vs 'update_work_package_progress', unclear distinction). No enum constraints on status/changeType parameters, inviting hallucinated values. No pagination support on list-like operations. Security: no evidence of secret injection or permission gates.
Accept a work package after QA review
Complete a QA review
Create a new project
Create a checkpoint for a project
Create a new task
Create a checkpoint for a task
Create a new work package
Get project details
Get work package details
Descriptions are too short (10-50 chars) and lack actionable context. Most are single-clause statements like 'Create a new project' with no guidance on WHEN to use the tool, what it returns, or dependencies. LLMs cannot distinguish between similar tools (e.g., create_project_checkpoint vs create_task_checkpoint) without richer descriptions.
No output schemas documented. Tools return results but LLMs have no visibility into what fields to expect. This breaks downstream tool chaining, e.g., create_project returns a projectId, but the schema does not declare it, forcing LLMs to guess or make extra discovery calls.
| Scored | Grade | Overall | Spec posture | Rubric |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-09-23 | F | 43 | 2026-07-28+ | v2 |
Record a file change for a task
Request fixes for a work package
Restore a project from a checkpoint
Restore a task from a checkpoint
Start a QA review for a work package
Update task status
Update work package progress
Update work package status
Status and changeType parameters accept free-form strings with no enum constraints. 'update_work_package_status' accepts any string as 'status'; 'record_file_change' accepts any string as 'changeType'. LLMs will hallucinate invalid values like 'pending' or 'modified' instead of the actual valid set (e.g., 'open', 'in_progress', 'closed').
Parameter descriptions are minimal and lack format/constraint guidance. E.g., 'projectId' is described as 'Project ID' with no hint about format (UUID, alphanumeric, etc.). 'progress' is described as 'Progress percentage (0-100)' but no validation shown in schema. LLMs cannot infer valid ranges or formats from names alone.
No error handling guidance. Tool-registry.ts shows basic validation (required fields, type checks) but error messages are generic ('Tool execution failed'). No recovery hints for LLMs, e.g., if projectId is invalid, the error should suggest 'Call list_projects() to find a valid ID' or similar.