This server has fundamental definition quality gaps. Tool descriptions are present but minimal (10-30 chars), falling well below the 194-char baseline for production tools. Parameter descriptions exist but are sparse and lack constraint details (no enums, ranges, or format specs). Input schemas are inferred from function signatures rather than explicitly defined, making them fragile. No output schemas are documented. Error handling is absent, no recovery guidance, no categorization. The tool registry auto-generates schemas from Python type hints, which is brittle and incomplete. No tool annotations (readOnlyHint/destructiveHint) despite having WRITE-risk tools (multi_edit, apply_patch). Overall, this reads as an early-stage framework, not production-ready.

• Expand all tool descriptions to 100-250 chars. Include WHAT the tool does, WHEN to use it, and what it returns. E.g., 'calculator' → 'Performs basic arithmetic operations (add, subtract, multiply, divide) on two numbers. Returns the numeric result. Use for math computations in agent workflows.'
• Add explicit output schema documentation for each tool. Document the response structure, field types, and any pagination/limit behavior. E.g., search_web should document: returns array of {title, url, snippet, source} objects, capped at max_results.
• Add destructiveHint and readOnlyHint annotations to tool definitions. Mark multi_edit and apply_patch as destructive; mark read_file and get_weather as read-only. This enables agents to reason about side effects.
• Convert parameter descriptions to include constraints. Replace 'operation' description with 'Operation type: one of add, subtract, multiply, divide'. Add ranges for numeric params (e.g., 'max_results: integer, 1-100').
• Implement error handling patterns. Document expected errors (e.g., 'file not found', 'invalid operation'), categorize as retryable/user-fixable/fatal, and provide recovery guidance in error responses.