MCP Attest exposes 5 tools with basic descriptions and parameter schemas, but falls short of production quality. Tool names are clear (verify, fingerprint, trust, policy, generate_manifest) and descriptions exist (avg ~80 chars), but lack depth on WHEN to use each tool and what downstream actions they enable. Parameter descriptions are present but minimal (avg ~40 chars). No output schemas are documented, LLMs cannot predict what fields to expect or chain tools. Error handling is absent from visible code. The server appears to be a CLI wrapper around an attestation library (Attester class visible), but tool definitions are inferred from CLI argument parsing rather than explicit MCP tool registration with full schemas.

• Document output schemas for all tools. E.g., verify() should return {identity_result: {method, verified, details}, integrity_result: {status, changes}, trust_score: float, recommendation: 'allow'|'deny'}. This enables LLM chaining.
• Expand tool descriptions to 100 - 150 chars. Add WHEN to use: 'Call verify() first to check if a server's identity and capabilities match its manifest. Use before trusting a new MCP server. Returns trust_score and recommendation.'
• Enhance parameter descriptions with format and validation rules. E.g., 'server: MCP server URL (must be HTTPS or http://localhost:*, format: https://host:port/path)'. 'manifest: Path to expected manifest JSON file (relative or absolute path, must exist)'.
• Add error handling examples in descriptions. E.g., 'If server is unreachable, verify() returns error code UNREACHABLE. Retry with allow_private_ips=true if server is on private network.'
• Create explicit MCP tool registration (not CLI-inferred). Use mcp.Tool() or equivalent to register each tool with full InputSchema, description, and annotations (readOnlyHint=true for verify/fingerprint/trust/policy, destructiveHint=false for all).