Server has 6 tools with basic descriptions and input schemas present. However, parameter descriptions are sparse or missing entirely (e.g., 'query' in list_atoms lacks guidance on search syntax; 'type' in get_atom_schema has no description). Output schemas are not documented, LLMs cannot predict what fields to expect from responses. Tool descriptions are adequate (50-150 chars) but lack WHEN/WHY guidance. No error handling documentation. The build_app tool is destructive (WRITE risk) but has no confirmation pattern or dry-run option. Overall structure is functional but falls short of production-grade agent tool standards.

• Document output schemas for all tools. Example: list_atoms returns {atoms: [{id: string, name: string, description: string}], total: number}. This enables agents to chain tools and extract the right fields.
• Add parameter descriptions with format/constraint hints. E.g., 'query: Optional search term (e.g., "button", "form"). Searches atom names and descriptions. Leave empty to list all 474 atoms.'
• Add error handling guidance to tool descriptions. E.g., 'Returns 400 if payload is invalid JSON, call validate_payload first to debug. Returns 404 if atom type not found, call list_atoms to see available types.'
• Implement confirmation pattern for build_app. Add a 'dry_run' boolean parameter (default true) so agents can preview the deployment before committing. Or add a separate 'preview_build' tool.
• Add tool annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint) to the MCP schema. Mark build_app with destructiveHint=true and all others with readOnlyHint=true so clients can warn users before execution.

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

• Relies on Dynamic Client Registration (deprecated) - use Client ID Metadata Documents (CIMD)