This MCP server has critical gaps in definition quality. All 11 tools are listed only by tool name (e.g., 'action_menu_component_tools'), with descriptions that are i18n keys ('ai.actionMenu.description') rather than actual English text. The source code shows a utility function `defineComponentTool()` that constructs tools from a `ComponentTool` interface, but the actual tool schemas and descriptions are not visible in the provided code. The `paramsSchema` field references `tools[key].paramsSchema` without explicit type definitions visible. Parameter descriptions are completely absent, only parameter names exist in the schema structure. There is no documented output schema. Error handling is minimal (generic 'tool not found' text). Without seeing the actual component tool implementations (e.g., packages/mcp/src/action-menu/index.ts content), tool definitions are inferred rather than directly visible, triggering the cap-at-50 rule. However, even with that cap, the absence of real descriptions (only i18n keys) and lack of visible parameter documentation further depresses the score. This server is in an early/incomplete state.

• Replace all i18n placeholder descriptions with actual English text. Each tool description should explain WHAT it does, WHEN to use it, and any prerequisites. Target 50-200 characters per description (rubric baseline: 194 chars average for A+ tools).
• Add action verb prefixes to tool names. Instead of 'action_menu_component_tools', use verb_noun pattern: 'configure_action_menu', 'get_action_menu_state', 'update_action_menu_properties', etc. This makes tool intent self-evident to LLMs.
• Document every input parameter. For each parameter in paramsSchema, add a description explaining what it controls, what values are valid, and any constraints. Use enums for known value sets (e.g., 'status must be one of: active, inactive, pending').
• Define and document output schemas. Specify what fields each tool returns, their types, and what information the agent can extract. Include any IDs or references needed for chaining to other tools.
• Implement actionable error messages. Instead of 'tool X not found', return 'Unknown tool: X. Available tools: foo, bar, baz. Did you mean one of these?' This guides the LLM toward recovery.
• Add permission hints for destructive tools. Tools with WRITE risk (action_menu, alert, amount, area, avatar, badge, base_select, breadcrumb) should note in their descriptions if they modify state and whether a confirmation step is needed.
• Expand tool definitions to include sub-operations. The current design aggregates multiple operations under one tool (e.g., all 'action_menu' operations in one callback). Split into granular tools: 'configure_action_menu', 'get_action_menu_properties', 'delete_action_menu_item' so agents can compose intent precisely.