The Kickflow MCP server has three tools with basic registration, but significant gaps in schema completeness, parameter descriptions, and output documentation. Only 2 of 3 tools have visible input schemas; descriptions are generic and lack actionable guidance. No output schemas are documented. The tools map conceptually to Arcade patterns (discovery, lookup, mutation) but lack the rigor expected for production quality. Average per-tool score: 48 (discover_apis: 45, get_api_info: 48, call_api: 52).

• Add a complete output schema to discover_apis documenting the structure of the returned API list (e.g., { apis: [{ operationId: string, description: string, category?: string }], total: number }).
• Expand all tool descriptions to 80 - 200 characters, explicitly stating: (1) what the tool does, (2) when to use it vs similar tools, (3) prerequisites (e.g., 'Call discover_apis first to find valid operationIds'), (4) example use case.
• For get_api_info and call_api, replace the bare 'operationId' description with a constraint: 'The operation ID (string, e.g. "ListUsers", "CreateTicket"). Call discover_apis to list all valid operation IDs.'
• For call_api, define the 'params' schema with an example and constraint: 'Parameters required by the API operation (object). Structure depends on the operationId. E.g., for CreateUser: { name: string, email: string }. Refer to get_api_info to see parameter requirements for the chosen operationId.'
• Document the output schema for each tool. Include example responses showing field types, nested structures, and pagination info if applicable. E.g., 'Returns { result: T, status: "success"|"error", error?: string }'.
• Add error handling guidance: 'If operationId is invalid, call discover_apis to list available operations. If params are malformed, call get_api_info to see required parameters.'
• Consider adding a dry_run parameter to call_api: 'Optional boolean (default false). If true, validate params without executing the operation. Useful for large mutations.'