Building Level 2: Tool Ecosystems That Actually Scale

Tool Component Architecture
════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

1. METADATA LAYER
   ├── Identifier: "send_email"
   │   Purpose: Unique, explicit name for LLM discovery
   │   Naming convention: action_noun format (verb_object)
   │
   └── Description: "Send an email to a specified recipient.
       Use when user requests email delivery or notification."
       Purpose: Intent matching for LLM tool selection
       Critical: This drives tool selection accuracy

2. SCHEMA VALIDATION LAYER
   ├── Input Contract:
   │   ├── to: EmailAddress (required, validated format)
   │   ├── subject: String (required, 1-200 chars)
   │   ├── body: String (required, min 1 char)
   │   └── from: EmailAddress (optional, has default)
   │
   ├── Validation Rules:
   │   ├── Type checking (string vs number vs object)
   │   ├── Format validation (email regex, length limits)
   │   ├── Required vs optional field enforcement
   │   └── Default value injection
   │
   └── Runtime Behavior:
       ├── Invalid input → Return schema violation error
       ├── Valid input → Pass typed data to handler
       └── Prevents downstream errors from malformed data

3. HANDLER EXECUTION LAYER
   ├── Receives: Validated, typed parameters
   ├── Authenticates: With external email service provider
   ├── Transforms: Parameters → Provider API format
   ├── Executes: API call with proper error boundaries
   └── Returns: Structured response object

4. RESPONSE CONTRACT
   ├── Success Path:
   │   {
   │     success: true,
   │     messageId: "unique-provider-id",
   │     timestamp: "ISO-8601-datetime"
   │   }
   │
   └── Error Path:
       {
         success: false,
         error: "human-readable-message",
         errorCode: "PROVIDER_ERROR | VALIDATION_ERROR | etc"
       }
       Critical: Never throw exceptions that break agent loop

ARCHITECTURAL DECISIONS:
════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

Decision: Schema validation library (Zod, Joi, etc.)
Rationale: Runtime type safety + compile-time inference
          Prevents LLM hallucinated parameters from reaching handlers

Decision: Explicit naming ("send_email" not "email")
Rationale: LLMs perform better with verb_noun clarity
          Reduces tool selection ambiguity

Decision: Rich descriptions with usage context
Rationale: Description is primary signal for LLM tool selection
          More important than parameter names for accuracy

Decision: Structured error responses
Rationale: Maintains agent conversation loop continuity
          Enables error recovery and retry logic

Decision: Environment-based secrets
Rationale: Development/staging/production isolation
          Prevents credential leakage in code

MCP Server Architecture
════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

SYSTEM COMPONENTS:
├── MCP Server Process
│   ├── Capabilities Declaration
│   │   Advertises: "tools" capability to clients
│   │   Enables: Tool discovery and execution
│   │
│   ├── Request Handlers
│   │   ├── tools/list → Returns catalog of available tools
│   │   └── tools/call → Executes specified tool with params
│   │
│   └── Transport Layer
│       Options: stdio, HTTP, WebSocket
│       Default: stdio (process communication)
│       Production: HTTP for remote access
│
├── Client Applications (Claude Desktop, Cline, etc.)
│   ├── Discovery Phase
│   │   1. Connect to MCP server via transport
│   │   2. Query capabilities to find supported features
│   │   3. Request tools/list to get full catalog
│   │   4. Parse tool schemas for LLM context
│   │
│   └── Execution Phase
│       1. LLM selects tool based on intent
│       2. LLM generates parameters matching schema
│       3. Client sends tools/call request
│       4. Server executes handler, returns result
│       5. Client receives structured response
│       6. LLM incorporates result into conversation
│
└── Tool Registry Integration
    MCP server acts as protocol adapter:
    Registry (internal format) ↔ MCP Server ↔ Standard Protocol

PROTOCOL FLOW:
════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

[AI Application] ←→ [MCP Server] ←→ [Tool Registry]

1. DISCOVERY REQUEST (tools/list)
   AI App → MCP Server: "What tools are available?"
   MCP Server → Registry: Query all tool definitions
   Registry → MCP Server: Return tool catalog
   MCP Server → AI App: Format as MCP tool list

   Response structure:
   {
     tools: [
       {
         name: "send_email",
         description: "Send email via provider API",
         inputSchema: {
           type: "object",
           properties: {
             to: { type: "string", format: "email" },
             subject: { type: "string" },
             body: { type: "string" }
           },
           required: ["to", "subject", "body"]
         }
       },
       { ... more tools ... }
     ]
   }

2. EXECUTION REQUEST (tools/call)
   AI App → MCP Server: {
     name: "send_email",
     arguments: {
       to: "user@example.com",
       subject: "Test",
       body: "Hello"
     }
   }

   MCP Server → Registry: executeTool("send_email", params)
   Registry → Validation Layer → Handler → External API
   Handler → Registry: Structured result
   Registry → MCP Server: Return response
   MCP Server → AI App: Format as MCP response

   Response structure:
   {
     content: [
       {
         type: "text",
         text: JSON.stringify({
           success: true,
           messageId: "msg_abc123"
         })
       }
     ]
   }

DEPLOYMENT ARCHITECTURES:
════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

Development Environment:
├── MCP Server runs as local process
├── Transport: stdio (process stdin/stdout)
├── Client config points to executable path
└── Zero network configuration required

Production Environment:
├── MCP Server deployed as hosted service
├── Transport: HTTP/WebSocket for remote access
├── Client config uses network endpoints
└── Enables centralized tool management

CLIENT CONFIGURATION PATTERN:
════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

MCP clients discover servers via configuration:

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "company-tools": {
      "command": "node",
      "args": ["/absolute/path/to/mcp-server.js"],
      "env": {
        "API_KEY": "secret-value",
        "LOG_LEVEL": "info"
      }
    }
  }
}

Configuration elements:
- Server identifier: Unique name for this tool catalog
- Command: Executable to launch MCP server process
- Args: Command-line arguments passed to process
- Env: Environment variables for server context

Client behavior:
1. Read configuration file at startup
2. Launch MCP server processes via command
3. Establish stdio transport connection
4. Query tools/list to populate catalog
5. Tools available to LLM immediately

ARCHITECTURAL BENEFITS:
════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

✓ Protocol Standardization
  Single implementation works across all MCP clients
  No platform-specific adaptations required
  Future clients support tools automatically

✓ Zero Manual Registration
  Configuration file drives discovery
  No API keys for basic usage
  No manual tool catalog management

✓ Isolation and Security
  Each MCP server runs in separate process
  Server-level environment variable isolation
  Granular permission control per server

✓ Composability
  Multiple MCP servers can coexist
  Each server provides focused tool catalog
  Clients aggregate tools from all servers