HiveVault MCP has 4 tools with basic schemas and descriptions, but significant gaps prevent production use. Tool names lack clear action verbs (vault_store/vault_get are acceptable but vault_get is ambiguous about decryption). Descriptions are present but generic (avg ~80 chars, below 194-char baseline). Input schemas exist but lack depth: parameters have types but descriptions are minimal or missing context about constraints, formats, and error cases. No output schemas documented. Error handling is absent, tools do not guide recovery or categorize failures. Security concerns: INTERNAL_KEY exposure risk, no permission gates, no audit logging visible. Composition is weak: tools operate on encrypted payloads without clear guidance on when to use each. Overall, this reads as a prototype rather than production-grade tooling.

• Add explicit output schemas to all tools. Document vault_store response as {item_ref: string, created_at: ISO8601}, vault_get as {item_ref, did, created_at}, etc. This enables LLM planning.
• Expand parameter descriptions with format/constraint details. E.g., 'did: Decentralized identifier (alphanumeric, 1-256 chars). Used to track call count for BOGO eligibility. Required for payment verification.'
• Add error handling guidance. E.g., vault_get: 'If item_ref not found, returns 404. Verify item_ref format (vi_*). Call vault_store first if storing new data.'
• Rename vault_get to vault_get_metadata to clarify it does not decrypt. Add a separate vault_decrypt tool if decryption is a supported operation, or document why it is not exposed.
• Document prov_verify input constraints: method must be uppercase (GET, POST, etc.), path must start with /, ts must be current Unix timestamp (within 60s), sig_b64u must be valid base64url. Add example: 'method: POST, path: /v1/vault/store, body_b64u: eyJkaWQiOiAidXNlcjEyMyJ9, ts: 1704067200, sig_b64u: <valid-ed25519-signature>'.