Forum Research MCP demonstrates solid definition quality with complete schemas, proper Zod validation, and tool annotations. All 4 tools have descriptions (avg 108 chars) and input schemas with type constraints. Naming follows verb_noun convention (forum_search, forum_research, thread_read, forum_sources). However, parameter descriptions lack depth, most are 1-2 sentences without format guidance, constraint details, or dependency hints. Output schemas are not documented in tool definitions. Error handling returns generic messages without recovery guidance. Tool composition is clean (single responsibility), but descriptions could better explain WHEN to use each tool vs alternatives.

• Add output schema documentation to each tool. Example for forum_research: 'Returns {status: "success"|"coverage_limited"|"no_relevant_evidence", evidence: [{quote: string, source: {id, url, title}, author, date}], total_threads_read: number}'.
• Enhance parameter descriptions with format and constraint prose. Change 'Search query (2-500 characters)' to 'Search query (2-500 chars, alphanumeric + spaces/hyphens). Avoid URLs. E.g., "Python async patterns" or "forum moderation best practices".'
• Implement structured error responses with recovery hints. Return {isError: true, errorCode: string, message: string, recoveryHint: string, retryable: boolean}. Example: {errorCode: 'RATE_LIMITED', message: 'Too many requests', recoveryHint: 'Wait 60s and retry', retryable: true}.
• Add dependency hints to optional parameters. For query_variants: 'Provide 2-3 alternative phrasings if initial results are sparse. E.g., if searching "Python async", also try "asyncio patterns" and "concurrent Python".'
• Clarify forum_search vs forum_research in descriptions. Add: 'Use forum_search to discover thread URLs quickly. Use forum_research to read threads and extract evidence with source attribution. Call forum_search first if unsure which threads are relevant.'