[everything] Add structured content tool

[richardkmichael]

Add a structuredContent tool to Everything server to demonstrate Tool Result Structured Content, added in spec 2025-06-18.

Note:

Includes these changes unrelated to the Structured Content tool: (only the last commit is the new tool)

• Reformat server instructions to be easier to read and maintain
• Consistent code formatting (this project has no prettier / lint configuration)
• Organize the code
  • group Tools, Resources, Completions together
  • use a consistent order for everywhere Tools to ease review of future additions

Description

Server Details

• Server: everything
• Changes to: tools

Motivation and Context

The Everything server is helpful for learning about MCP and testing clients. More specification
coverage would be ideal, so add this new feature from the latest spec.

How Has This Been Tested?

Tested with the MCP Inspector. The Inspector gained Tool Structured Output support in PR
456.

Breaking Changes

No.

Types of changes

• Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
• New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
• Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to change)
• Documentation update

Checklist

• I have read the MCP Protocol Documentation
• My changes follows MCP security best practices
• I have updated the server's README accordingly
• I have tested this with an LLM client
• My code follows the repository's style guidelines
• New and existing tests pass locally
• I have added appropriate error handling
• I have documented all environment variables and configuration options

Additional context

I also organized tool related code to make adding future tools easier.

[cliffhall]

@richardkmichael thanks for this! Nice implementation.

Even though there are some unrelated drive-by changes (to instructions markdown, and order of tools) I'll approve. In the future, it would be nice for the PR description to call out such changes ahead of time, to make for fewer surprises in the review process.

Tested locally, LGTM! 👍

[cliffhall]

@richardkmichael Just noticed, you need to resolve conflicts before the PR can be merged. Sorry it took so long to get to this one. It was buried in a mountain of PRs to add servers to the README. 😔

[richardkmichael]

@richardkmichael thanks for this! Nice implementation.

In the future, it would be nice for the PR description to call out such changes ahead of time, to make for fewer surprises in the review process.

Helpful feedback, thanks @cliffhall . I adjusted the PR description in case anyone else looks at it.

Tested locally, LGTM! 👍

Rebased, hopefully good now.

I have a tiny bit more cleanup, but it'll be a small separate PR to avoid further distraction here.

[cliffhall]

LGTM! 👍