This server has 2 tools with critical gaps in parameter documentation. Both tools lack parameter descriptions entirely, violating the core pattern that 100% of A+ tools have documented parameters. Tool descriptions are minimal (10-14 chars) and fall well below the 34-char p10 baseline. Input schemas are present with types but parameters have null descriptions, making it impossible for LLMs to understand what each parameter controls. The resource (echo_resource) is functional but not a tool per the MCP spec. Overall definition quality is Poor (D grade territory).

• Add explicit descriptions to all parameters. For 'add(a, b)', write: a='First operand (float, any value)', b='Second operand (float, any value)'. For 'random_number(min_val, max_val)', write: min_val='Lower bound (inclusive, integer >= -2147483648)', max_val='Upper bound (inclusive, integer <= 2147483647, must be >= min_val)'.
• Expand tool descriptions to 50-100 chars with clarity on return type and use case. Example for 'add': 'Add two floating-point numbers and return their sum. Use this for arithmetic operations. Returns a float.'
• Document the return type in the tool description or via explicit schema output annotation. State 'Returns: float' for add and 'Returns: int' for random_number.
• Add validation and error handling: if min_val > max_val in random_number, raise ValueError with message 'Invalid range: min_val (X) must be <= max_val (Y)' to guide LLM correction.
• Consider adding min/max parameter constraints in schema (e.g., minimum: -1000000, maximum: 1000000 for add) to constrain LLM input without relying on parameter description parsing.