Five tools with basic naming and descriptions, but significant gaps in schema completeness and parameter documentation. Tool names follow verb_noun convention (submit_task, get_task_status, answer_gate, list_projects, get_project_config), which is good. However, input schemas lack critical details: no enum constraints for project identifiers, no format specifications, no validation ranges. Parameter descriptions are minimal (10-20 chars each). Output schemas are not documented anywhere in the provided source. Error handling and recovery guidance are absent. The server exposes task orchestration capabilities but lacks the rigor expected of production tools.

• Document output schemas for all tools. Example: get_task_status should return {taskId, status, progress, result?, error?}. Include field types and descriptions.
• Expand parameter descriptions to 50-100 chars with format hints. E.g., 'The project identifier (alphanumeric slug, e.g. my-project). Call list_projects to discover available projects.'
• Add enum constraints or reference list_projects for the project parameter. Prevent hallucinated project names by making valid options explicit.
• Add error handling guidance to each tool description. E.g., 'Returns 404 if task not found, verify taskId with get_task_status. Returns 409 if task is not paused, only answer_gate works on paused tasks.'
• For write operations (submit_task, answer_gate), add a dry_run parameter or document a confirmation pattern. E.g., 'Set dry_run=true to validate without executing.'