Single tool 'receive_hook_event' has a complete input schema with 5 parameters, all typed and described. However, the tool description is minimal (56 chars), barely meeting the 10-char floor but well below the 194-char baseline for production tools. No output schema is documented. The tool's purpose, receiving and processing hook events, is stated but lacks context on WHEN to use it, WHAT it returns, or HOW to handle errors. Parameter descriptions are present but generic ('Full hook event data from Claude Code' for 'data' param). No error handling guidance. The tool appears to be a passive receiver rather than an agent-callable tool, which raises architectural questions about its role in the MCP ecosystem.

• Expand tool description to 150 - 250 characters. Include: 'Receives and processes hook events from Claude Code (e.g., tool execution, agent state changes). Returns confirmation of processing status and any extracted metadata. Use this to integrate Claude Code events into external workflows.'
• Document the output schema explicitly. Specify what fields are returned (e.g., status: 'success'|'error', processed_event_id, timestamp, error_message if applicable).
• Enhance 'data' parameter description: 'Full hook event payload from Claude Code, including event metadata, tool context, and execution results. Structure varies by event_type.'
• Add error handling guidance: 'If processing fails, returns error with classification (retryable: invalid session ID; fatal: malformed event). Retry with exponential backoff for transient failures.'
• Clarify the tool's role: Is this meant to be called by agents, or is it a server-side event handler? If server-side only, consider removing from tool registry and handling via internal event dispatch instead.