This server has severe definition quality gaps. Both tools have minimal descriptions (under 50 characters each), completely empty input schemas with no parameter definitions, and no documented output schemas. The tools are simple read-only database queries without any parameter guidance, but their descriptions are so terse they fail to explain WHEN to use each tool or WHY they exist as separate endpoints. Per the rubric, descriptions under 20 chars cap at 0-20, and empty input schemas with no properties cap schema scores at 0. The naming is adequate (verb-noun), but the lack of any parameter or output documentation, combined with absent error handling guidance, makes these tools difficult for LLMs to use confidently.

• Expand tool descriptions to 100-150 characters. Example for get_completed_payments: 'Retrieve all payments that have been successfully completed (done=true). Use this to summarize completed transactions or verify payment status. Returns an array of payment objects sorted by completion date.'
• Document the output schema explicitly. Example: 'Returns: {payments: [{id: string, amount: number, done: boolean, created_at: ISO8601, ...}], count: number}'
• Add limit and offset parameters to both tools with descriptions: 'limit: Maximum number of results (1-100, default 20). offset: Number of results to skip for pagination (default 0).'
• Enhance error messages with recovery steps. Example: 'MongoDB Error: connection timeout. Check database URI in environment. Retry after 5 seconds or contact support if issue persists.'
• Consider consolidating into a single 'list_payments' tool with an optional 'status' parameter (enum: 'all'|'completed') to reduce confusion and tool count.
• Add tool descriptions that explain the use case and relationship to other tools. Example: 'get_completed_payments: Optimized query for the common case of viewing finished payments. For more control (filtering by date range, amount, customer), use the search_payments tool.'