CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 2Topic ModelingNatural Language Processing TechniquesArtificial Intelligence Applications

MCP-RADAR: A Multi-Dimensional Benchmark for Evaluating Tool Use Capabilities in Large Language Models

Open access
Gao, Xuanqi, Xie, Siyi, Zhai, Juan, Ma, Shiqing, Shen, Chao·2025·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2505.16700arXiv 2505.16700
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

As Large Language Models (LLMs) evolve from passive text generators to active reasoning agents capable of interacting with external tools, the Model Context Protocol (MCP) has emerged as a key standardized framework for dynamic tool discovery and orchestration. Despite its widespread industry adoption, existing evaluation methods do not adequately assess tool utilization capabilities under this new paradigm. To address this gap, this paper introduces MCP-RADAR, the first comprehensive benchmark specifically designed to evaluate LLM performance within the MCP framework. MCP-RADAR features a challenging dataset of 507 tasks spanning six domains: mathematical reasoning, web search, email, calendar, file management, and terminal operations. It quantifies performance based on two primary criteria: answer correctness and operational accuracy. To closely emulate real-world usage, our evaluation employs both authentic MCP tools and high-fidelity simulations of official tools. Unlike traditional benchmarks that rely on subjective human evaluation or binary success metrics, MCP-RADAR adopts objective, quantifiable measurements across multiple task domains, including computational resource efficiency and the number of successful tool-invocation rounds. Our evaluation of leading closed-source and open-source LLMs reveals distinct capability profiles and highlights a significant trade-off between accuracy and efficiency. Our findings provide actionable insights for both LLM developers and tool creators, establishing a standardized methodology applicable to the broader LLM agent ecosystem. All implementations, configurations, and datasets are publicly available at https://anonymous.4open.science/r/MCPRadar-B143.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2505.16700

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • MCP-RADER and MCPEval cover only a few servers with at most several dozen tools, which limits task diversity and makes most workflows relatively short.

    “For example, MCP-RADER (Gao et al., 2025) and MCPEval (Liu et al., 2025a) cover only a few servers with at most several dozen tools, which limits task diversity and makes most workflows relatively short (e.g., single retrieval followed by a summary).”

    From MCP-Bench: Benchmarking Tool-Using LLM Agents with Complex Real-World Tasks via MCP Servers (2025) · cites this paper as Gao et al., 2025

    Section 3.3.3 reports 42 tools, supporting the 'several dozen tools' part for MCP-RADAR. The paper does not establish that it uses only a few servers or that its tool count limits task diversity. Sections 3.3.1–3.3.2 describe 300 tasks across three domains, including tasks requiring more than four tool calls; they do not establish that most workflows are short. This verdict does not assess MCPEval, which is attributed to a different citation. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 27

  1. Dan Hendrycks, Collin Burns, Steven Basart, Andy Zou, Mantas Mazeika, Dawn Song, and Jacob Steinhardt. Measuring Massive Multitask Language Understanding, . URL http: //arxiv.org/abs/2009.03300.
  2. Xingyao Wang, Zihan Wang, Jiateng Liu, Yangyi Chen, Lifan Yuan, Hao Peng, and Heng Ji. MINT: Evaluating LLMs in Multi-turn Interaction with Tools and Language Feedback. URL http://arxiv.org/abs/2309.10691. · arXiv
  3. Mohit Shridhar, Xingdi Yuan, Marc-Alexandre Côté, Yonatan Bisk, Adam Trischler, and Matthew Hausknecht. ALFWorld: Aligning Text and Embodied Environments for Interactive Learning. URL http://arxiv.org/abs/2010.03768. · arXiv
  4. Karl Cobbe, Vineet Kosaraju, Mohammad Bavarian, Mark Chen, Heewoo Jun, Lukasz Kaiser, Matthias Plappert, Jerry Tworek, Jacob Hilton, Reiichiro Nakano, Christopher Hesse, and John Schulman. Training Verifiers to Solve Math Word Problems. URL http://arxiv.org/abs/ 2110.14168.
  5. Dan Hendrycks, Collin Burns, Saurav Kadavath, Akul Arora, Steven Basart, Eric Tang, Dawn Song, and Jacob Steinhardt. Measuring Mathematical Problem Solving With the MATH Dataset, . URL http://arxiv.org/abs/2103.03874. · arXiv
  6. Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma, Fei Xia, Ed Chi, Quoc V Le, Denny Zhou, et al. Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models. Advances in neural information processing systems, 35:24824-24837, 2022.
  7. Huanxi Liu, Jiaqi Liao, Dawei Feng, Kele Xu, and Huaimin Wang. Autofeedback: An llm-based framework for efficient and accurate api request generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.06943, 2024. · arXiv
  8. Yifan Song, Weimin Xiong, Dawei Zhu, Wenhao Wu, Han Qian, Mingbo Song, Hailiang Huang, Cheng Li, Ke Wang, Rong Yao, et al. Restgpt: Connecting large language models with real-world restful apis. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.06624, 2023. · arXiv
  9. Yujia Qin, Shihao Liang, Yining Ye, Kunlun Zhu, Lan Yan, Yaxi Lu, Yankai Lin, Xin Cong, Xiangru Tang, Bill Qian, et al. Toolllm: Facilitating large language models to master 16000+ real-world apis. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.16789, 2023. · arXiv
  10. Qiaoyu Tang, Ziliang Deng, Hongyu Lin, Xianpei Han, Qiao Liang, Boxi Cao, and Le Sun. Toolalpaca: Generalized tool learning for language models with 3000 simulated cases. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.05301, 2023. · arXiv
  11. Shishir G Patil, Tianjun Zhang, Xin Wang, and Joseph E Gonzalez. Gorilla: Large language model connected with massive apis. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37: 126544-126565, 2024.
  12. Aaron Parisi, Yao Zhao, and Noah Fiedel. Talm: Tool augmented language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.12255, 2022. · arXiv
  13. Pan Lu, Baolin Peng, Hao Cheng, Michel Galley, Kai-Wei Chang, Ying Nian Wu, Song-Chun Zhu, and Jianfeng Gao. Chameleon: Plug-and-play compositional reasoning with large language models. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36:43447-43478, 2023.
  14. Timo Schick and Hinrich Schütze. Exploiting cloze questions for few shot text classification and natural language inference. arXiv preprint arXiv:2001.07676, 2020. · arXiv
  15. Gobinda Chowdhury and Sudatta Chowdhury. Ai-and llm-driven search tools: A paradigm shift in information access for education and research. Journal of Information Science, page 01655515241284046, 2024.
  16. Yuchen Zhuang, Yue Yu, Kuan Wang, Haotian Sun, and Chao Zhang. Toolqa: A dataset for llm question answering with external tools. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36:50117-50143, 2023.
  17. Xiao Liu, Hao Yu, Hanchen Zhang, Yifan Xu, Xuanyu Lei, Hanyu Lai, Yu Gu, Hangliang Ding, Kaiwen Men, Kejuan Yang, et al. Agentbench: Evaluating llms as agents. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.03688, 2023. · arXiv
  18. Timo Schick, Jane Dwivedi-Yu, Roberto Dessì, Roberta Raileanu, Maria Lomeli, Eric Hambro, Luke Zettlemoyer, Nicola Cancedda, and Thomas Scialom. Toolformer: Language models can teach themselves to use tools. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36: 68539-68551, 2023.
  19. Cheng-Yu Hsieh, Si-An Chen, Chun-Liang Li, Yasuhisa Fujii, Alexander Ratner, Chen-Yu Lee, Ranjay Krishna, and Tomas Pfister. Tool documentation enables zero-shot tool-usage with large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.00675, 2023. · arXiv
  20. Zekun Wang, Ge Zhang, Kexin Yang, Ning Shi, Wangchunshu Zhou, Shaochun Hao, Guangzheng Xiong, Yizhi Li, Mong Yuan Sim, Xiuying Chen, et al. Interactive natural language processing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.13246, 2023. · arXiv
  21. Qiantong Xu, Fenglu Hong, Bo Li, Changran Hu, Zhengyu Chen, and Jian Zhang. On the tool manipulation capability of open-source large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.16504, 2023. · arXiv
  22. Percy Liang, Rishi Bommasani, Tony Lee, Dimitris Tsipras, Dilara Soylu, Michihiro Yasunaga, Yian Zhang, Deepak Narayanan, Yuhuai Wu, Ananya Kumar, et al. Holistic evaluation of language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.09110, 2022. · arXiv
  23. Minghao Li, Yingxiu Zhao, Bowen Yu, Feifan Song, Hangyu Li, Haiyang Yu, Zhoujun Li, Fei Huang, and Yongbin Li. Api-bank: A comprehensive benchmark for tool-augmented llms. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.08244, 2023. · arXiv
  24. Pei Wang, Yanan Wu, Zekun Wang, Jiaheng Liu, Xiaoshuai Song, Zhongyuan Peng, Ken Deng, Chenchen Zhang, Jiakai Wang, Junran Peng, et al. Mtu-bench: A multi-granularity tool-use benchmark for large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.11710, 2024. · arXiv
  25. Grégoire Mialon, Clémentine Fourrier, Craig Swift, Thomas Wolf, Yann LeCun, and Thomas Scialom. GAIA: A benchmark for General AI Assistants. URL http://arxiv.org/abs/ 2311.12983.
  26. Mark Chen, Jerry Tworek, Heewoo Jun, Qiming Yuan, Henrique Ponde de Oliveira Pinto, Jared Kaplan, Harri Edwards, Yuri Burda, Nicholas Joseph, Greg Brockman, Alex Ray, Raul Puri, Gretchen Krueger, Michael Petrov, Heidy Khlaaf, Girish Sastry, Pamela Mishkin, Brooke Chan, Scott Gray, Nick Ryder, Mikhail Pavlov, Alethea Power, Lukasz Kaiser, Mohammad Bavarian, Clemens Winter, Philippe Tillet, Felipe Petroski Such, Dave Cummings, Matthias Plappert, Fotios Chantzis, Elizabeth Barnes, Ariel Herbert-Voss, William Hebgen Guss, Alex Nichol, Alex Paino, Nikolas Tezak, Jie Tang, Igor Babuschkin, Suchir Balaji, Shantanu Jain, William Saunders, Christopher Hesse, Andrew N. Carr, Jan Leike, Josh Achiam, Vedant Misra, Evan Morikawa, Alec Radford, Matthew Knight, Miles Brundage, Mira Murati, Katie Mayer, Peter Welinder, Bob McGrew, Dario Amodei, Sam McCandlish, Ilya Sutskever, and Wojciech Zaremba. Evaluating Large Language Models Trained on Code. URL http://arxiv.org/ abs/2107.03374. · arXiv
  27. Jacob Austin, Augustus Odena, Maxwell Nye, Maarten Bosma, Henryk Michalewski, David Dohan, Ellen Jiang, Carrie Cai, Michael Terry, Quoc Le, and Charles Sutton. Program Synthesis with Large Language Models. URL http://arxiv.org/abs/2108.07732. · arXiv

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Gao, X., Xie, S., Zhai, J., Ma, S., & Shen, C.
Affiliations
  • Xi'an Jiaotong University (CN)
  • Amherst College (US)
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2025
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2505.16700
arXiv
2505.16700
OpenAlex
W6891974623
Cited by
2
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 2
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Artificial Intelligence Applications
Keywords
large language models, tool use, Model Context Protocol, LLM agents, benchmark, tool invocation, mathematical reasoning, web search, file management, terminal operations, accuracy-efficiency trade-off

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review