This is a benchmark corpus, not a production MCP server. The 16 tools are duplicates across multiple test cases (authz-001 through authz-004, authz-002, authz-003). Tool definitions are present with schemas and descriptions, but the corpus is designed to test security vulnerabilities (authorization bypass, confused deputy, privilege escalation), not to demonstrate quality tool design. Descriptions are minimal (10-50 chars), parameters lack detailed constraints, and output schemas are not documented. No error handling guidance. The server is intentionally vulnerable in some cases (authz-001, authz-002, authz-003 non-safe variants) to test detection. This is not a production-grade tool suite.

• Consolidate duplicate tools. If this is a benchmark, document the corpus structure clearly. If it's a server, remove duplicates and expose only one canonical set of tools.
• Expand tool descriptions to 100-200 chars. Example: 'Fetch an expense report for the authenticated user. Returns a summary of expenses for the specified month. Call whoami() first to verify your identity. Requires read:expense permission.'
• Document output schemas. Example: get_report returns {status: 'success'|'error', report: string, month: string, user: string} or {status: 'error', message: string, code: 'not_authorized'|'not_found'}.
• Add parameter constraints. Example: role param should be an enum: ['admin', 'viewer', 'owner']. user param should document expected format: 'username or email address'.
• Add error handling guidance. Example: 'If status is not_authorized, the caller lacks permission. If not_found, the resource does not exist. Errors are not retryable.'