This server has 2 tools with basic definitions but significant quality gaps. Both tools have descriptions (good), but parameter descriptions are minimal and inconsistent with production baselines. Output schemas are not documented. No error handling guidance. The 'roll_dice' tool has a weak description that doesn't explain when to use it vs other tools. The 'add_numbers' tool is trivial and lacks context about edge cases (e.g., integer overflow). Neither tool provides structured output documentation. There is 1 resource ('info://server') that returns JSON info, but tool focus is the evaluation. Overall, this resembles a learning project rather than production-grade tooling.

• Add explicit constraints to 'num_dice': 'number of dice to roll (1 - 100, default 1). Rolls 1-6 sided standard dice.'
• Expand 'add_numbers' description to ~100 - 150 chars: 'Adds two integers together and returns the sum. Use for basic arithmetic when both operands are known. Returns an integer; no modular or floating-point arithmetic.'
• Document return types and schemas: roll_dice returns a string like 'You rolled: [3, 5, 1]'; add_numbers returns an int. Add a note: 'Output: {"result": int}' or similar.
• Add parameter ranges and validation hints: 'a and b: integers in range [−2147483648, 2147483647]. No validation; caller must ensure inputs are within Python int bounds.'
• Add error handling guidance: 'If num_dice is 0, negative, or > 100, the tool will raise ValueError. Retry with a valid count (1 - 100).'
• Consider renaming 'add_numbers' to 'sum_integers' or 'compute_sum' for clearer semantic intent.
• Include dependency or usage hints: e.g., 'Roll dice first if you need random numbers; then add them with add_numbers if you want the total.'