Critical failure: Tool definitions are inferred from a validation script (scripts/validate-artifacts.mjs) rather than explicitly visible in source code. No input schemas, parameter descriptions, or output schemas are provided in the repository. Tool descriptions are minimal (10-50 chars) and lack actionable context. No evidence of parameter validation, error handling guidance, or composition patterns. This server cannot be evaluated against production quality baselines.

• Provide complete MCP server implementation with explicit tool registration including JSON Schema input schemas for all 5 tools. Currently only .mcp.json config files are visible; the actual server code is missing.
• Expand tool descriptions to 50-200 characters following LLM-optimized format: WHAT it does, WHEN to use it, WHAT it returns. Example: 'Create a new note in CuteNote. Use when user wants to save content. Returns note_id and creation timestamp.'
• Document all parameters with type, description, constraints, and examples. For create_note: document required fields (title, content), optional fields (tags, folder), and valid value ranges.
• Add output schema documentation for each tool. Specify return fields (note_id, created_at, url), types (string, number, ISO8601), and whether results are paginated.
• Implement error handling patterns: categorize errors as retryable (network timeout) vs user-fixable (invalid note_id), and return actionable messages like 'Note not found. Call list_notes() to see available notes.'