All 7 tools have basic descriptions (10-100 chars) and input schemas with required parameters. However, parameter descriptions are entirely absent, the schema shows only type and required fields, with no explanation of what each parameter means or accepts. Tool names follow verb_noun convention (read_, search_, check_, get_) but lack specificity: 'read_x_post' vs 'read_x_thread' are similar enough to confuse LLM selection. No output schemas documented. Error handling and recovery guidance are not visible in the code. The server is functional but falls well short of production-grade tool definition quality.

• Add a description to every parameter. For 'url_or_id', write: 'The X post identifier: either a full URL (https://x.com/user/status/123) or a numeric status ID (123). Required.'
• Document output schemas for all tools. E.g., 'Returns {post_id: string, author: string, text: string, created_at: ISO8601, url: string}' so LLMs know what fields to expect.
• Rename 'read_x_post' → 'get_x_post' and 'read_x_thread' → 'get_x_thread_conversation' to reduce naming confusion and align with verb_noun convention.
• Add error recovery hints to descriptions. E.g., 'If credentials fail, call check_x_reader first to verify access. If post not found, try search_x_posts with keywords.'
• Split 'url_or_id' into two optional parameters ('post_url' and 'post_id') with clear descriptions, or add a regex pattern constraint to the description: 'Either a URL matching https://x.com/.*/status/\d+ or a numeric ID.'