CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 5Topic ModelingNatural Language Processing TechniquesInformation Retrieval and Search Behavior

MCP-Atlas: A Large-Scale Benchmark for Tool-Use Competency with Real MCP Servers

Open access
Bandi, Chaithanya, Dumitru, Razvan-Gabriel, Hertzberg, Ben, Agarwal, Divyansh, Boo, Geobio, Polakam, Tejas, Hassaan, Sami, Da, Jeff +15 more·2026·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2602.00933arXiv 2602.00933
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The Model Context Protocol (MCP) is emerging as a standard interface through which large language model (LLM) agents discover and invoke external tools. However, existing MCP evaluations fall short along three key axes: realistic multi-step workflows with cross-server orchestration, breadth across authentic MCP servers rather than mocks, and structured, reproducible claim-level scoring disentangled from agent verbosity or style. We introduce MCP-Atlas, a benchmark for measuring tool-use competency against production MCP servers. MCP-Atlas contains 1,000 natural-language tasks written and verified by human experts spanning 36 real MCP servers and 220 tools. Prompts do not specify servers, tools, or parameters, requiring agents to identify relevant tools among semantically plausible distractors and to compose multi-step, cross-server workflows. Each task is scored with a claim-level rubric, where final answers are scored against atomic factual claims grounded in tool outputs. This answer-centric scoring permits valid alternative tool-call trajectories to receive credit. We pair this with an 11-category diagnostic taxonomy that disentangles tool-call failures from cognitive failures in task understanding, synthesis, parsing, and stopping. Evaluating 20 frontier models from six providers under matched task-level conditions, we find pass rates up to 82.2% at a 0.75 claim coverage threshold and a clear three-tier performance structure. Automated diagnostics show that 63.3% of diagnosed failures are cognitive rather than tool-call related. Notably, several high-performing models fail after successful tool execution due to premature stopping or incorrect synthesis. We release the task schema, containerized harness, claim evaluator, and a 500-task public split, while reserving a 500-task private split to preserve leaderboard integrity. The code is at https://github.com/scaleapi/mcp-atlas.

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2602.00933

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Building the MoE decoding kernel upon the token-centric design of WarpDecode, in which each warp is responsible for one output neuron and streams the associated weights directly from memory, is adopted.

    “We instead build the MoE decoding kernel upon the token-centric design of WarpDecode [12], in which each warp is responsible for one output neuron and streams the associated weights directly from memory.”

    From Kimi K3: Open Frontier Intelligence (2026) · cites this paper as [12]

  • Agents traditionally resolve sub-tasks by rigidly invoking tools in a sequential manner.

    “Traditionally, agents resolve these sub-tasks by rigidly invoking tools in a sequential manner (Bandi et al., 2026;Li et al., 2026).”

    From MS-Eval: Benchmarking Sub-Agent Delegation and Orchestration in MCP-Intensive Working Scenarios (2026) · cites this paper as Bandi et al., 2026

Cites

Still being checked.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Bandi, C., Dumitru, R.-G., Hertzberg, B., Agarwal, D., Boo, G., Polakam, T., Hassaan, S., Da, J., Kim, H., Gupta, V., Sharma, M., Park, A., Dimakis, M., Montoya, E. G. H., Rambado, D., Salazar, I., Cruz, R., Rezaei, M., Rane, C., Levin, B., Zhang, D. Y., Kenstler, B., & Liu, B.
Affiliations
  • National University of Singapore (SG)
  • Hochschule Aalen (DE)
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2026
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2602.00933
arXiv
2602.00933
OpenAlex
W7127367462
Cited by
1
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 1
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Information Retrieval and Search Behavior
Keywords
Model Context Protocol, tool use, LLM agents, benchmark, multi-step workflows, cognitive failure, LLM agent evaluation, tool discovery

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