Server demonstrates solid fundamentals: all 5 tools have explicit schemas with proper JSON Schema structure, descriptions are present and action-oriented, and error handling is structured with typed exceptions. However, parameter descriptions are entirely absent, the schema declares properties but provides no guidance on what each parameter means or how to use it. Tool descriptions are brief (10-30 chars) and lack context on when to use each tool or what it returns. No output schemas are documented. The review_record tool is well-designed (deterministic, structured), but the CRUD tools lack the depth expected of production integrations.

• Add 50 - 100 character descriptions to every parameter. Example: 'id (string): Unique record identifier. Required for get, update, and delete operations.' This matches the 72-char baseline for param annotations.
• Expand tool descriptions to 100 - 200 chars. Example for list_records: 'Retrieve all records in the store. Returns an array of record objects with id, name, amount, and status. Use this to discover available records before calling get_record or review_record.'
• Document output schemas for each tool. Example: 'Returns: { id: string, name: string, amount: number, status: enum[draft|active|archived], createdAt: ISO8601 }'
• Add pagination to list_records: accept 'limit' (1 - 100, default 20) and 'offset' (default 0) parameters. Return { records: [...], total: number, hasMore: boolean }.
• Enhance error descriptions. When writes are disabled, the error message is clear, but the tool description should hint: 'Write operations require MCP_ALLOW_WRITES=true. If disabled, the tool will return a WRITES_DISABLED error; ask the user to enable writes or use read-only tools instead.'