VibeServe

by ncsound919

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Hybrid

vibe_benchmark

Run benchmarking loops and visualize performance with ASCII graphs. Compare results to optimize code generation.

Instructions

Run a benchmarking loop with ASCII graphs.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "ctx": "<ctx>"
    },
    "name": "vibe_benchmark"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ctx`	Yes
`iterations`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.0.0Jun 17, 2026

TDQS

C2.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It only mentions running a loop and ASCII graphs, omitting side effects, prerequisites, or what the loop measures. This is insufficient for an agent to understand behavioral traits.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single short sentence, which is concise but lacks necessary detail. It could be more informative without becoming verbose.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (benchmarking loop with graphs), the description is notably incomplete. It does not specify what is being benchmarked, the expected output format, or any assumptions about the 'ctx' parameter. The presence of an output schema is not leveraged in the description.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description adds no meaning to 'ctx' or 'iterations'. It does not explain what context is required or how iterations affect behavior, leaving parameter semantics entirely to the user's inference.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action 'Run a benchmarking loop' and mentions 'ASCII graphs' as output. While it distinguishes the tool from siblings via the 'benchmarking' focus, it does not explicitly contrast with similar tools like vibe_test.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., vibe_test, vibe_architect). The description lacks context for appropriate use.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.