This server has 4 tools with mixed quality. Naming is generally acceptable (verb-noun style), but descriptions lack depth and parameter documentation is incomplete. Schema quality is low, only 2 of 4 tools have explicit input schemas with typed parameters. The collect_user_info tool claims to use elicitation but the feature flag is false, creating a credibility gap. Output schemas are not documented. Error handling is absent. The server demonstrates basic capability but falls short of production quality.

• Add explicit input schema to collect_user_info. Even if it accepts no CLI args, document the Context parameter or wrap in a request object with a schema.
• Add explicit output schema to server_info showing { server_name: string, version: string, features: { resources: string, prompts: string, ... }, available_tools: string[], available_resources: string[], available_prompts: string[] }.
• Expand descriptions to 50 - 200 characters with clear guidance: 'Sums two numbers. Use when the user asks for arithmetic. Returns: float sum.' Include a sentence on when NOT to use (e.g., 'Do not use for counting items, use list_* tools instead.').
• Add parameter descriptions and ranges: calculate_sum(a: float, description='First operand (range: -1e6 to +1e6)'; b: float, description='Second operand (range: -1e6 to +1e6)').
• Document output types for all tools. E.g., echo returns 'string: The input text prefixed with "Echo: "'.
• Add input validation inside tools: reject a or b > 1e6 in calculate_sum; reject empty/null text in echo; enforce schema for any user data in collect_user_info.
• Add error guidance: if elicitation times out in collect_user_info, return 'Elicitation timed out. User did not respond within 30 seconds. Try a simpler prompt or ask the user directly.'
• Align feature flags with actual code: set elicitation=true if using ctx.elicit(), or remove the elicit() call if the server does not negotiate this capability.
• Consider splitting collect_user_info into separate gathering and storage steps for idempotency. Current implementation mixes elicitation and response in one tool, making retries risky.