This server has severe definition quality issues. Only 2 tools are defined, both with minimal descriptions and incomplete schemas. 'browser_json' accepts a single 'data' string parameter with a trivial 18-character description. 'ping' has no parameters and a generic 28-character description. Neither tool has documented output schemas, error handling guidance, or parameter constraints. The test file shows tool definitions but lacks production-grade documentation. No evidence of parameter validation, error recovery patterns, or LLM-optimized descriptions. This is far below baseline for production use.

• Expand tool descriptions to 100-200 characters. For browser_json: 'Sends JSON commands to control a browser instance. Accepts a JSON string with command type, target selector, and action parameters. Returns success status and result data.'
• Document output schemas for both tools. Define what fields ping returns (e.g., {status: string, latency_ms: number}) and what browser_json returns (e.g., {success: boolean, result: any, error?: string}).
• Add parameter descriptions. For 'data': 'JSON string containing browser command. Must include "command" (string) and "target" (CSS selector). Example: {"command": "click", "target": ".submit-btn"}'
• Implement error handling patterns. Return structured errors like {success: false, error: 'Invalid JSON in data parameter', suggestion: 'Ensure data is valid JSON with required fields'} instead of raw exceptions.
• Rename 'browser_json' to a verb-noun pair like 'execute_browser_command' or 'send_browser_action' to clarify intent and improve LLM tool selection.