This server exposes 4 tools with significant definition gaps. All tools have descriptions (good), but schemas are incomplete or missing critical details. The `search` tool has a well-structured schema with proper types and descriptions. However, `execute`, `graphql_execute`, and `sparql_execute` have minimal schemas, each accepts only a `code` string parameter with no validation, constraints, or output schema documentation. Parameter descriptions exist but lack actionable guidance on expected formats, error cases, or recovery paths. No tool declares error handling, permissions, or idempotency guarantees. Tool names are verb-based (search, execute) but generic, `execute` appears three times with different contexts, risking LLM confusion. Output schemas are entirely undocumented; agents cannot plan downstream calls or extract structured data. Security concerns: tools accept arbitrary JavaScript code execution, yet no description warns of sandbox limitations, timeout behavior, or what happens on malicious input.

• Rename execute tools to reflect their domain: api_execute, graphql_query_execute, sparql_query_execute. This disambiguates contexts and helps LLMs select the right tool.
• Document output schemas for all tools. For search: return {endpoints: [{name, path, method, params, description}], total_count, next_cursor}. For execute tools: return {result, console_output, staged_data_info?, error?}.
• Add error handling guidance to execute tools: 'If code times out (>30s), simplify the query or use pagination. If sandbox error occurs, check syntax and available APIs.' Include recovery paths.
• Add constraints to 'code' parameter: max length (e.g., 10KB), allowed function names (api.get, api.post, gql.query, sparql.query), and timeout (e.g., 30s). Document in description.
• Document the __staged response field: when it appears, its structure (e.g., {workspace_id, table_name, row_count}), and how to query it via a companion tool. Clarify auto-staging thresholds (>30KB mentioned but not formalized).