Five tools with explicit schemas and descriptions, but quality is uneven. Tool names follow verb_noun convention (analyze_, generate_, audit_, apply_, test_) which is good. However, descriptions are terse (10-20 chars for some), parameter descriptions are sparse or missing, and output schemas are not documented. analyze_repository and generate_webmcp have reasonable descriptions; audit_webmcp_security and apply_webmcp lack detail on what 'security gaps' means and what 'approved' entails. No parameter descriptions visible for most tools. Error handling and recovery guidance absent. Schemas present but minimal, no output structure documented anywhere.

• Add 1-2 sentence descriptions to every parameter. For repositoryPath: 'Absolute or workspace-relative path to the web application root. Relative paths are resolved from the server's working directory.' For strict in audit_webmcp_security: 'If true, fail on any security gap; if false, warn only on critical issues.'
• Document output schemas for all tools. E.g., analyze_repository should return {discovery: {actions: [], forms: [], ...}, timestamp: string}. generate_webmcp should return {patchId: string, proposedTools: [...], status: 'pending'|'ready'}.
• Add error recovery guidance. E.g., apply_webmcp: 'If apply fails, check the error message. Common causes: patch expired (regenerate), build check failed (fix errors and retry), or file conflicts (manual merge required).'
• For apply_webmcp, implement a dry-run mode or require explicit confirmation. Add a 'dryRun' boolean parameter (default false) so agents can preview changes before committing.
• Clarify the relationship between analyze_repository, generate_webmcp, and apply_webmcp. Add a note like: 'Typical workflow: (1) analyze_repository to discover endpoints, (2) generate_webmcp to propose tools, (3) audit_webmcp_security to review, (4) apply_webmcp to commit.' This guides agent planning.