This server exposes 27 tools with significant quality gaps. All tools have basic schemas and descriptions present, but descriptions are generic and parameter documentation is minimal. Most parameters lack meaningful context (e.g., 'user_id parameter' instead of explaining what user_id controls). No output schemas are documented. Parameter descriptions are trivial (avg ~20 chars), violating the 50-200 char LLM-optimized baseline. Many tools expose user_id as a parameter, which should be injected server-side. Error handling is absent from visible code. Tool naming is reasonable (verb_noun pattern), but composition issues exist: multiple tools operate on the same resources without clear differentiation (e.g., create_tool, upsert_tool, add_base_tools all modify tools). No evidence of idempotency guarantees, pagination limits, or recovery guidance.

• Expand all parameter descriptions from placeholders to 50-200 character explanations. Example: 'tool_id parameter' → 'The unique identifier of the tool to delete. Must be a valid UUID. Deletion is permanent and cannot be undone.'
• Document output schemas for all 27 tools. Specify which fields are returned, their types, and which are safe to pass to downstream tools. Example: 'Returns {tool_id: string, name: string, description: string, created_at: ISO8601, ...}'
• Remove user_id from tool parameters. Inject it server-side via authenticated context or environment variables. Update tool descriptions to reflect that user context is automatic.
• Add error handling guidance to destructive tools (delete_*, modify_*). Document what errors can occur (e.g., 'Tool not found', 'Permission denied'), whether they are retryable, and what the LLM should do. Consider adding a dry_run parameter or confirmation step.
• Clarify tool composition: merge create_tool and upsert_tool into a single tool with an 'mode' parameter (create|update), or document when to use each. Similarly, consolidate retrieve_source and retrieve_source_by_name into a single tool accepting either ID or name.