Four tools with basic schemas and descriptions, but significant gaps in parameter documentation and output schema clarity. All tools are READ_ONLY and well-scoped (single responsibility), but descriptions lack actionable detail for LLM selection. Parameter descriptions are minimal or absent. No documented output schemas, error handling guidance, or recovery paths. Naming is clear and verb-based (get_, focus_, find_), following conventions. However, the server lacks the depth expected for production use, descriptions average ~60 chars (below 194-char baseline), and parameter annotations are sparse.

• Document the output schema for each tool. Example: 'Returns a JSON object with keys: hierarchy (tree structure), components (array of {name, file, line}), metadata (count, depth).' This enables LLMs to extract and chain results.
• Expand tool descriptions to 100 - 200 chars. Include WHEN to use each tool and what it returns. Example for find-by-text: 'Searches all components for text content. Returns matching components with file paths and line numbers. Use this to locate UI elements by visible text; use find-by-style for CSS-based searches.'
• Add descriptions to all parameters. For find-by-style, clarify: 'className: CSS class name to search for (e.g., "btn-primary"). style: Inline style property (e.g., "color: red"). If both provided, returns components matching either.'
• Add error handling and recovery guidance. Example: 'If componentName not found, returns empty result with suggestion: "Component 'Header' not found. Available top-level components: Layout, Page, Navigation."'
• Consider adding a 'limit' parameter to find-by-text and find-by-style to cap results and prevent context window exhaustion. Document the default and maximum.

Inferred effective spec: <=2025-11-25.

• Relies on Logging (deprecated) - log to stderr or use OpenTelemetry