This server acts as a bridge/proxy that dynamically registers tools from upstream MCP servers. Tool definitions are inferred from upstream responses rather than explicitly defined in the bridge code. The 4 tools shown have minimal descriptions (mcp_status is adequate at ~100 chars; others are generic templates). Critically, tools 2-4 are DYNAMIC, their actual schemas depend on upstream servers and are not visible in the bridge source code. Per the hard rules, inferred tool definitions cap at 50 per-tool. mcp_status has a proper schema; the dynamic tools lack explicit schema definitions in the bridge itself. No tool annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint). Error handling is absent, no recovery guidance, no categorization. The bridge is a proxy, not a primary tool provider, which limits applicability of the full rubric.

• At bridge registration time, resolve upstream tool names and inject them into the bridge's tool registry with their actual descriptions and schemas. Replace 'mcp_<server>_<tool>' with concrete names like 'mcp_github_list_repos' so LLMs can infer intent.
• Add tool annotations: mark mcp_status and resource/prompt readers as readOnlyHint=true. Mark dynamic tools with appropriate destructiveHint/idempotentHint based on upstream metadata.
• Implement error wrapping: catch upstream errors and return structured responses with recovery hints. E.g., 'Tool failed: <upstream error>. Try calling mcp_status to verify the server is connected.'
• Document the bridge's role and limitations in the server info description. Clarify that tool availability depends on upstream server connections and that failures may indicate upstream issues.
• Add a discovery tool (e.g., mcp_list_available_tools) that returns all currently registered upstream tools with their descriptions, so agents can explore what's available without trial-and-error.