Loading ToolBench
Generates a Dockerfile, fly.toml, and flyctl commands for deploying a stdio MCP server via supergateway on Fly.io
Single tool with comprehensive schema and reasonable descriptions. Input schema is well-structured with 11 parameters, all typed and described. Tool description is clear (127 chars) and explains the deployment purpose. However, output schema is not documented, the tool returns a string (Dockerfile content) but LLMs cannot see what fields or structure to expect from the generated plan. Parameter descriptions are adequate but lack actionable constraints (e.g., no enum for runtime, no min/max for port). Error handling is absent, no guidance on what happens if Fly.io deployment fails or if parameters are invalid. Security concern: required_env_vars are documented but no guidance on how to inject them safely. Composition is sound (single responsibility), but the tool does not return structured metadata (app_name, region, deployment_url) that downstream tools might need.
Generates a Dockerfile, fly.toml, and flyctl commands for deploying a stdio MCP server via supergateway on Fly.io.
Output schema not documented. Tool returns a string (Dockerfile content) but LLMs cannot infer what fields or structure the response contains. Agents cannot plan downstream calls or extract deployment metadata.
Parameter 'runtime' lacks enum constraint. Accepts 'python', 'node', 'go', 'binary' but no formal enum, LLMs may hallucinate invalid values like 'rust' or 'java'. Should declare enum: ['python', 'node', 'go', 'binary'].
No error handling or recovery guidance. If Fly.io deployment fails, invalid parameters are passed, or dependencies cannot be resolved, the tool provides no actionable error message. LLMs cannot self-correct.
Parameter 'target_port' lacks min/max constraints. Unbounded integer allows LLMs to pass invalid ports (0, 65536, negative). Should constrain to 1 - 65535.
Inferred effective spec: <=2025-11-25.
| Scored | Grade | Overall | Spec posture | Rubric |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-09-23 | D | 55 | <=2025-11-25 | v2 |
No idempotency guarantee documented. If an LLM retries the tool with identical parameters, will it produce the same Dockerfile? Agents need to know if this is safe to retry on failure.