The server defines 4 tools with good naming conventions (verb_noun pattern: template_list, template_get, template_upload, template_example_get). All tool descriptions are present and substantive (135-270 chars), explaining WHAT the tool does, WHEN to use it, and in some cases WHY (e.g., template_list guides users to call it first before template_get). All parameters have type definitions and descriptions. However, there are gaps in output schema documentation, while input schemas are complete, the actual response structures for each tool are not explicitly documented in the visible source code. Tool descriptions are thorough but could be more concise (several exceed the 194-char production baseline). Error handling guidance is absent, tools lack recovery hints or error classification. The server demonstrates solid baseline competence but lacks the polish of A-grade tools (structured output docs, error recovery patterns).

• Document the response schema for each tool. E.g., template_list response: {templates: [{id, name, version, ...}], total: number, truncated: boolean}. This enables LLMs to extract and chain results.
• Add error handling guidance to tool descriptions. E.g., template_get: 'If template not found, call template_list to verify ID. If server unavailable, retry with exponential backoff.'
• Explicitly mark template_upload as a write operation: 'This tool modifies state on the server. It registers or updates a Template and cannot be reversed except by uploading a replacement.'
• Cap template_list default maxResults at 50 instead of 0 (unlimited). Update description: 'Maximum results to return (0 = no limit, but defaults to 50 for performance). When set, returns truncated flag and total count.'
• Condense tool descriptions to 100 - 180 characters. Focus on the single primary use case and move detailed workflow context into the prompt or server instructions.

Inferred effective spec: <=2025-11-25.

• Relies on Logging (deprecated) - log to stderr or use OpenTelemetry