Server has 25 tools with consistent naming (verb_noun pattern) and complete input schemas using Pydantic BaseModel. Descriptions are present but generic, most are 40-80 chars, below the 194-char baseline for A+ tools. Parameter descriptions are minimal (e.g., 'The ID of the workflow to retrieve'). Output schemas are not documented; tools return JSON strings without specifying field structure. Error handling is absent, no recovery guidance, categorization, or actionable messages. Security: credentials are not exposed as parameters (good), but no audit logging, permission gates, or scope declarations visible. Composition is sound: tools are single-responsibility and chainable (e.g., list_workflows → get_workflow → execute_workflow). No tool annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint) despite clear risk levels (READ_ONLY, WRITE, DESTRUCTIVE).

• Expand tool descriptions to 150-250 chars. Include WHAT the tool does, WHEN to use it, and any side effects. E.g., 'Delete a workflow. This is irreversible and will stop all active triggers. Use n8n_list_workflows() first to confirm the ID.'
• Document output schemas for all tools. Specify returned fields, types, and structure. E.g., list_workflows returns {workflows: [{id, name, active, tags}], total, nextCursor}. This enables LLMs to chain tools correctly.
• Add error handling with recovery guidance. Return structured errors: {error: 'workflow_not_found', message: 'Workflow ABC not found.', suggestion: 'Try n8n_list_workflows() to see available workflows.'}
• Implement tool annotations: add readOnlyHint=true to all list_* and get_* tools; add destructiveHint=true to all delete_* tools; add idempotentHint=true to tools safe to retry (e.g., get_workflow).
• Add permission gates and audit logging. Log who called what tool, with which parameters, and what happened. Gate destructive operations behind permission checks (e.g., require 'admin' role for delete_workflow).