Server has 7 tools with basic schemas and descriptions, but significant quality gaps. All tools have descriptions (10-80 chars, mostly short), and Zod schemas are present with parameter types. However, descriptions are generic and lack actionable context for LLM selection. No output schemas documented. Error handling is minimal, most failures return generic 'Failed to retrieve' messages without recovery guidance. No parameter validation beyond type checking. No enum constraints for filter parameters like 'status', 'priority', 'ordering'. Tool names follow verb_noun pattern (good), but descriptions don't explain WHEN to use each tool or dependencies between them. The login tool stores credentials in memory without secure handling guidance. No pagination limits documented despite accepting page/page_size. Response data is returned as raw JSON strings, not structured objects.

• Document output schemas for all tools. Define expected response fields (e.g., rack_list returns [{id, name, status, power_usage}]) so LLMs can extract and chain data reliably.
• Enhance error messages with recovery guidance. Replace 'Failed to retrieve rack list' with 'Failed to retrieve rack list (HTTP 404). Verify rack_id exists or try get-rack-list to discover available racks.'
• Add enum constraints to filter parameters. For get-ticket-list, define status as enum ['open', 'in_progress', 'closed', 'resolved'] and priority as enum ['low', 'medium', 'high', 'urgent'].
• Document pagination bounds in descriptions. E.g., 'page_size: Number of results per page (1-100, default 20)' to prevent LLMs from requesting excessive data.
• Expand tool descriptions to 100-150 chars with WHEN/WHY context. E.g., 'Get power consumption data for a rack over a time range. Use this to analyze energy usage trends or identify peak load periods. Requires rack_id and ISO 8601 date range.'