Server has 6 tools with basic schemas and descriptions, but significant gaps prevent production use. Tool names follow verb_noun convention (getWorkflows, deleteWorkflow, etc.), which is good. However, descriptions are generic (avg ~40 chars, well below 194-char baseline), parameter descriptions are sparse or missing, and output schemas are not documented. No error handling guidance, no pagination support despite list tools, and no tool annotations (readOnlyHint/destructiveHint). The destructive deleteWorkflow tool lacks confirmation/dry-run pattern. Parameter schemas exist but lack depth, no enums for constrained inputs, no format specs, no min/max bounds. This is typical D-grade community server work.

• Add output schema documentation to every tool. Example for getWorkflows: 'Returns {workflows: [{id: number, name: string, status: string, created_at: ISO8601}], total: number, next_cursor?: string}'.
• Expand tool descriptions to 100-200 chars. Current descriptions (30-40 chars) lack context. Example: 'getWorkflows: Retrieve all workflows from HaloPSA. Use includeinactive=true to include disabled workflows. Returns paginated list with workflow IDs, names, and status. Call this first to discover available workflows before operating on specific ones.'
• Add pagination to list tools: add limit (1-100, default 20) and offset/cursor parameters. Document max result cap in description.
• Implement confirmation pattern for deleteWorkflow: add a dry_run parameter or require a separate confirm_delete call. Document that deletion is irreversible.
• Add per-parameter descriptions explaining purpose and constraints. Example: 'includecriteriainfo (boolean): If true, include workflow step criteria conditions in response. Use when you need to understand step execution logic.'

Inferred effective spec: <=2025-11-25.

• Relies on Logging (deprecated) - log to stderr or use OpenTelemetry