Server demonstrates solid fundamentals: all 5 tools have clear descriptions (194 - 280 chars, within baseline 34 - 392), explicit input schemas with types and constraints, and proper enum usage for constrained inputs. Tool names follow verb_noun convention (taklo_info, taklo_prijs_berekenen, taklo_koppelingen_opzoeken, taklo_demo_aanvragen, taklo_contact_opnemen). However, output schemas are not documented in the source, responses are inferred from code logic rather than formally declared. Error handling is present (rate limiting, deduplication) but lacks actionable recovery guidance for LLMs. Parameter descriptions are adequate but could be more explicit about format/range expectations. No security issues detected (no secrets in params, write tools are gated). Composition is clean: each tool has one responsibility, and write tools return referentie codes enabling downstream actions.

• Add explicit output schema documentation to each tool. E.g., taklo_info should declare: 'Returns {feiten: string, snapshotDatum: string}'. taklo_demo_aanvragen should declare: 'Returns {referentie: string, bericht: string}'.
• Enhance error messages with actionable recovery. Replace 'Te veel aanvragen. Max 240 lees-acties per minuut per IP-adres. Probeer over een minuut opnieuw.' with 'Rate limited: max 240 read actions/min per IP. Retry after 60s. If this persists, contact Taklo at taklo.nl/support.'
• Repeat JSON Schema constraints in parameter descriptions. For 'telefoon', add to description: '6 - 40 characters; only digits, +, -, spaces, and parentheses allowed.'
• Document deduplication behavior in taklo_demo_aanvragen and taklo_contact_opnemen descriptions. E.g., 'If called twice with the same email within 24 hours, returns the same referentie code (no duplicate request created).'
• Consider adding a dry-run or preview parameter to write tools. E.g., taklo_demo_aanvragen(naam, email, telefoon, bedrijf, preview=true) returns what would be logged without actually logging it, enabling agents to confirm before committing.