SMCP exposes 5 tools with complete input schemas and basic descriptions. All tools follow verb_noun naming (registerTool, listTools, getTool, deleteTool, searchTools). Descriptions are present but generic (avg 85 chars, below 194-char baseline). Parameters have types and descriptions, but lack constraints (enums, ranges, patterns). No output schemas documented. Error handling and recovery guidance absent. Tool composition is reasonable (single responsibility per tool), but parameter design could be more LLM-friendly (e.g., visibility as enum, limit bounds). Security risk: deleteTool is destructive but lacks confirmation/dry-run pattern.

• Document output schemas for all tools. E.g., registerTool returns {id: string, owner: string, name: string, visibility: string, description: string, createdAt: ISO8601}. This enables LLMs to chain calls and extract required fields.
• Add enum constraint to 'visibility' parameter: one of [public, private, internal]. Update descriptions to explain each level.
• Add bounds to 'limit' parameter in searchTools: min=1, max=100, default=20. Document in description: 'Maximum number of results (1 - 100, default 20).'
• Enhance tool descriptions with WHEN/WHY guidance. E.g., listTools: 'List all tools or filter by owner/visibility. Use this to discover available tools; use getTool if you already know the owner and name.'
• Add dry-run or confirmation pattern to deleteTool. E.g., add optional 'confirm' parameter (boolean, default false). If false, return {status: 'preview', tool: {...}, message: 'Call again with confirm=true to delete.'}. Prevents accidental destruction.