The Ephorate MCP Proxy defines only 2 tools: list_tools and call_tool. Both are infrastructure/gateway tools rather than domain-specific agents. list_tools has a basic but adequate description; call_tool has a longer description that explains its role as a policy enforcement gate. However, critical gaps emerge: (1) Neither tool's input schema is visible in the provided source code, only inferred from brief parameter mentions in the descriptions. (2) call_tool accepts an 'arguments' parameter typed as 'object' with no property schema, making it impossible for an LLM to know what sub-fields are valid. (3) Output schemas are completely undocumented, callers have no way to know what structure these tools return. (4) Neither tool has error handling guidance; LLMs cannot distinguish between retryable failures, permission denials, and policy rejections. (5) The tools are meta-infrastructure (proxying other tools) rather than domain-solving tools, they exist to gate calls, not to solve user problems directly. This architecture is valid for a policy platform, but the tool definitions lack the detail needed for reliable LLM integration. Based on the rubric baseline (194 chars avg for good descriptions, 100% of A+ tools have documented return types), these tools fall short.

• Document full input schema for list_tools with explicit parameters: return a JSON Schema object defining fields like filter (optional enum: 'all'|'visible'), offset (integer, >=0, default 0), limit (integer, 1 - 1000, default 50). Describe each.
• Document full input schema for call_tool with typed 'arguments' property: specify that arguments is an object where keys match the upstream tool's parameter names, and values match their types. Provide an example structure or reference to upstream schema discovery.
• Add output schema documentation: list_tools returns an object with 'tools' (array of {name: string, description: string, schema?: object}) and 'total' (integer). call_tool returns an object with 'result' (any, the upstream tool's output), 'status' ('success'|'policy_blocked'|'error'), and optionally 'redactions' (array of field paths that were redacted).
• Enhance call_tool description to explain policy enforcement semantics: 'Executes a tool call through Ephorate's policy engine. The call is validated against configured access policies, argument transformation rules, and output redaction rules. Returns the upstream tool result (potentially redacted) or a policy denial error. Status field indicates: success (call passed policy, result returned), policy_blocked (access denied, specific policy reason given), error (upstream call failed or policy engine error).'
• Add error classification to call_tool output: include 'error_type' field (enum: 'policy_denied', 'not_found', 'timeout', 'upstream_error', 'policy_engine_error') so LLMs can decide retry vs escalation vs user inquiry.