# Beyond Fluent Generation: A CPU Reliability Benchmark for MCP-Style Tool Calling in Sub-2B Small Language Models for Edge Deployment

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.07370 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.07370/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Tool learning and function calling, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use.
- Builds on 16 of its 24 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 7 Sep 2026.

## Placed in

- LLM agents and tool use / [Tool learning and function calling](https://mlsanity.com/agents/tool-learning-and-function-calling/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 16 of 16)

- [Qwen2.5 Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.15115/) (2024)
- [Toolformer: Language Models Can Teach Themselves to Use Tools](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.04761/) (2023)
- [Pythia: A Suite for Analyzing Large Language Models Across Training and Scaling](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2304.01373/) (2023)
- [τ-bench: A Benchmark for Tool-Agent-User Interaction in Real-World Domains](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.12045/) (2024)
- [Gorilla: Large Language Model Connected with Massive APIs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.15334/) (2023)
- [TinyLlama: An Open-Source Small Language Model](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.02385/) (2024)
- [API-Bank: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Tool-Augmented LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2304.08244/) (2023)
- [Textbooks Are All You Need II: phi-1.5 technical report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.05463/) (2023)
- [Identifying the Risks of LM Agents with an LM-Emulated Sandbox](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.15817/) (2023)
- [ToolSandbox: A Stateful, Conversational, Interactive Evaluation Benchmark for LLM Tool Use Capabilities](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2408.04682/) (2024)
- [Small Language Models: Survey, Measurements, and Insights](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2409.15790/) (2024)
- [Hammer: Robust Function-Calling for On-Device Language Models via Function Masking](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.04587/) (2024)
- [Octopus: On-device language model for function calling of software APIs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.01549/) (2024)
- [On the Robustness of Agentic Function Calling](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.00914/) (2025)
- [TinyLLM: A Framework for Training and Deploying Language Models at the Edge Computers](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.15304/) (2024)
- [Small Language Models for Efficient Agentic Tool Calling: Outperforming Large Models with Targeted Fine-tuning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2512.15943/) (2025)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Resource constrained single-board computers including Raspberry Pi, NVIDIA Jetson Nano, Arduino UNO Q, Orange Pi, and LattePanda motivate on-device small language model (SLM) agents that reduce cloud dependence, improve data locality, and tolerate intermittent connectivity. Model Context Protocol (MCP)-style tool invocation demands more than fluent generation: an agent must emit machine-readable JSON, select the correct tool, supply all required arguments, and avoid unintended actions. We establish a platform-agnostic CPU baseline by evaluating five open-weight models below two billion parameters Phi-1.5, Pythia-1.4B, TinyLlama-1.1B-Chat, Qwen2.5-0.5B, and Qwen2.5-1.5B on 100 prompts spanning weather retrieval, web search, calculation, email composition, and task creation, under greedy decoding and nucleus sampling. A recovery parser strips Markdown fences, extracts brace-delimited substrings, and scores parseability, tool-name correctness, argument completeness, and value agreement. Under this criterion, Qwen2.5-1.5B achieves 75% (greedy) and 79% (sampling); Qwen2.5-0.5B achieves 72% (greedy) but drops to 32% under sampling. Phi-1.5 scores 0%; Pythia and TinyLlama reach at most 7%. A strict post-hoc audit finds only 5 of 1,000 raw responses directly parseable as JSON, exposing near-total dependence on output recovery. A CPU resource probe shows Qwen2.5-1.5B requires 7,960 MiB and 30.782 s mean latency; Qwen2.5-0.5B uses 3,637 MiB and 10.627 s, revealing a reliability-resource trade-off for edge deployment. These results do not cover the named boards directly or a full MCP implementation. Safe deployment requires schema validation, constrained generation, least-privilege execution, and human escalation for consequential actions.