Server defines 5 tools with complete input schemas and descriptions. Naming follows verb_noun convention (http_request, api_health, jwt_decode, url_parse, header_analyzer). Descriptions are present and substantive (100-200 chars), meeting baseline expectations. However, output schemas are not documented, LLMs cannot predict response structure for downstream chaining. Parameter descriptions are adequate but lack constraint details (ranges, formats, validation rules). No error handling guidance visible in tool definitions. All tools are READ_ONLY, reducing risk, but composition could be tighter (url_parse does both parsing and building, violating single-responsibility).

• Document output schemas for all tools. Example for http_request: {status: number, headers: object, body: string, timing_ms: number}. This enables LLMs to chain tools and extract required fields.
• Split url_parse into two tools: parse_url (takes URL, returns components) and build_url (takes components, returns URL). Each tool should have one clear responsibility.
• Add schema constraints: http_request.timeout with minimum: 100, maximum: 300000; api_health.endpoints with maxItems: 20; api_health.expected_status with enum: [200, 201, 204, 301, 302, 400, 401, 403, 404, 500, 502, 503].
• Add error handling guidance to http_request and api_health descriptions: 'Returns error with status code and message. Network timeouts are retryable; 4xx errors indicate invalid input; 5xx errors may be transient.'
• Clarify http_request auth dependencies: 'For basic auth, provide both username and password. For bearer auth, provide token only. Omit auth object for unauthenticated requests.'