MCP Generator 2.0 exposes 4 UI rendering tools with clear, well-structured input schemas and good descriptions. All tools have explicit JSON Schema definitions with type information and parameter descriptions. However, there are significant gaps: (1) No output schemas are documented, LLMs cannot infer what these UI tools return or plan downstream actions; (2) Tool names lack action verbs, 'show_table', 'show_detail', 'show_chart', 'show_form' are vague about what happens when called vs alternatives like 'render_table' or 'display_sortable_table'; (3) Parameter descriptions contain example values ('Example: [{"key": "id", ...}]'), which LLMs often reuse literally; (4) No error handling guidance, no description of what happens on invalid input, how to recover, or what errors might occur; (5) The 'show_form' tool's 'submit_tool' parameter lacks validation, passing a nonexistent tool name will silently fail. Tool descriptions are moderate length (80-170 chars), meeting baseline but not optimized for LLM selection (ideal 50-200 chars). Per-tool assessment: show_table (65/100) has detailed column/row schemas but no return documentation; show_detail (60/100) has good field definitions but vague on how variants affect rendering; show_chart (65/100) has comprehensive data structure but missing chart generation error cases; show_form (55/100) conflates display tool with submission routing, unclear separation of concerns. This is a competent UI toolkit but lacks the refinement expected from production tools.

• Document return type and structure for each tool. E.g., show_table returns {rendered: boolean, message?: string} or void. This enables LLMs to chain tools and understand when to call display vs data-fetching tools.
• Replace 'show_*' names with action verbs: 'render_interactive_table', 'display_record_card', 'plot_data_chart', 'present_form_with_validation'. Verify each name clearly distinguishes intent.
• Remove example JSON snippets from descriptions. Instead, declare schema constraints in the JSON Schema 'properties' section (required fields, array min/max items, field restrictions).
• Add error handling guidance to each tool description: 'Fails if columns array is empty or rows keys do not match column keys. Returns error: {code: "invalid_structure", message: "..."}'
• For show_form, make 'submit_tool' an enum constraint listing available destination tools, or add error recovery: 'If submit_tool does not exist, returns {error: "Unknown tool. Available: create_user, update_user, delete_user"}' to guide the LLM.
• Add explicit enum constraints to JSON Schema for 'variant' (show_detail) and 'chart_type' (show_chart) instead of relying on description text alone.
• Clarify the purpose of each tool in its description: Is show_table for data exploration, is show_form for user input collection and submission, or are these pure rendering helpers? This affects when LLMs should invoke them.
• Document whether these tools are blocking (wait for user interaction) or non-blocking (render and return immediately). This affects agent planning and timeout handling.

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

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