Two tools with basic schemas and descriptions, but significant gaps in parameter documentation and output structure. submit-response has clear input schema with Zod validation; get-responses lacks proper output schema documentation. Both descriptions are minimal (under 100 chars) and lack context on when/why to use them. No error handling guidance, no pagination support for list operations, and no tool annotations. In-memory storage with no persistence is a major limitation for production use.

• Expand tool descriptions to 100-200 chars. For submit-response: 'Stores an LLM response with its prompt and timestamp. Use this when an LLM completes a task and you want to share results with other LLMs. Returns confirmation with stored response ID.' For get-responses: 'Retrieves stored LLM responses, optionally filtered by prompt. Returns array of responses sorted by timestamp (newest first). Use this to find prior solutions or compare LLM outputs.'
• Add structured output schema. Return JSON objects with fields {id, llmId, prompt, response, timestamp} instead of stringified JSON. Document this in tool description.
• Add pagination to get-responses: add limit (default 20, max 100) and offset parameters. Return {responses: [...], total: N, hasMore: boolean} to enable iteration over large result sets.
• Add error handling guidance. E.g., 'If no responses match the prompt filter, returns empty array. If llmId is empty string, returns error: "llmId required".'
• Replace in-memory storage with persistent backend (PostgreSQL, MongoDB, or file-based). Document data retention policy and add optional timestamp range filter to get-responses for time-windowed queries.