This server has significant definition quality gaps. Tool descriptions are present but generic (averaging ~40-60 chars, well below the 194-char baseline). Input schemas are visible and typed, but parameter descriptions are minimal or missing context. No output schemas are documented. Error handling is absent, tools return raw results with no recovery guidance. The server lacks idempotency hints, permission declarations, and audit-trail patterns. Most tools are READ_ONLY, but analyze_repository is WRITE without confirmation or dry-run support. No tool annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint) are present.

• Expand all tool descriptions to 100-200 chars. Include: what the tool does, when to call it (vs similar tools), what it returns, and any prerequisites. Example: 'Search for MCP servers by keyword in names, functions, and descriptions. Returns up to 20 results with server IDs, names, and brief descriptions. Use this to discover available servers before requesting certification.'
• Document output schemas for all tools. Specify field names, types, and whether fields are always present. Example for search_servers: {servers: [{id: string, name: string, description: string, match_score: number}], total_count: number, has_more: boolean}
• Add parameter descriptions that explain format and constraints. Example for repo_url: 'GitHub repository URL (format: https://github.com/owner/repo). Must be a valid, public repository.'
• Add confirmation/dry-run support to analyze_repository. Return a preview of what will be analyzed (repo size, file count, estimated cost) and require explicit confirmation before triggering the analysis.
• Implement error handling with recovery hints. Example: 'Repository not found. Verify the URL is correct and the repository is public. Try search_repository() to find similar repositories.'