Server exposes 5 tools with basic descriptions and no input schemas. Tool names follow verb_noun convention (list_*, validate_*), which is good. However, critical gaps undermine quality: (1) validate_user_story and validate_acceptance_criterion lack input schemas entirely, no type definitions, no parameter constraints; (2) descriptions are present but generic (50-150 chars), missing WHEN/WHY context and error guidance; (3) no output schemas documented; (4) no error handling guidance (what happens on validation failure?); (5) no pagination or result limits despite tools returning potentially large lists. The server is functional but falls short of production-grade agent tooling standards.

• Add explicit JSON Schema input definitions to validate_user_story and validate_acceptance_criterion. Define 'title' and 'text' as required strings with length constraints (e.g. minLength: 5, maxLength: 500). Define 'bdd' as optional string.
• Document output schemas for all tools. E.g. list_references returns {references: [{name: string, title: string, summary: string}]}. validate_user_story returns {checks: [{name: string, status: 'PASS'|'FAIL', explanation: string}]}.
• Enhance validate_* descriptions with error guidance: 'Returns a structured report of validation checks. If validation fails, explains which rules were violated and how to fix them. Accepts optional BDD scenario text for structural checks.'
• Add pagination to list_* tools: accept optional 'limit' (default 20, max 100) and 'offset' (default 0) parameters. Return {items: [...], total: number, offset: number, limit: number}.
• Expand list_examples and list_hard_rules descriptions to clarify when to call them: 'Call this first to discover available examples before requesting a specific one' and 'Returns the non-negotiable rules from the Interpop convention layer, use this to understand hard constraints before designing a backlog.'