t3_thread_getRetrieve a compact thread summary, including latest response, active run, pending flags, and workspace, to quickly assess project status.
Return a compact thread summary, latest response, active run, pending flags, and workspace.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| threadId | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| thread | Yes | ||
| environmentId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates the operation is safe and non-mutating. The description adds the useful behavioral detail that the result is a 'compact' summary rather than a full thread with all messages, but it does not disclose potential null states, pagination, or other edge behaviors.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one tightly packed sentence, starts with the action verb 'Return', and lists exactly what the caller gets. There is no filler or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a one-parameter, read-only getter with an output schema present, the description is largely sufficient: it identifies the input indirectly and enumerates the returned data. However, it lacks any pointer on how this summary tool relates to the message/run/pending-action siblings, which would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single threadId parameter has no schema description and schema coverage is 0%. The description does not mention threadId or clarify its meaning/format beyond what the tool name implies, so it fails to compensate for the lack of parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description names a specific verb and resource: it returns a compact thread summary plus specific components (latest response, active run, pending flags, workspace). This clearly communicates what the tool does, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like t3_thread_messages or t3_run_get.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as t3_thread_messages, t3_run_get, or t3_pending_actions_list. The intended context is only implicit from the listed return fields.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.