tb_operation_statusInspect the status of a queued, completed, or uncertain Thunderbird operation without repeating it, so agents can check progress or resolve uncertainty safely.
Inspect a queued, completed or uncertain operation without repeating it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| operation_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The phrase "without repeating it" adds a real behavioral guarantee — inspection does not re-execute the queued operation — but nothing is said about what "uncertain" state means or how pagination interacts with a status snapshot.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is efficient, though its brevity is close to under-specification rather than disciplined concision.
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?
An output schema exists and annotations cover safety, so return values need no explanation here. However, with three parameters at 0% schema coverage and no mention of limit/cursor in the description, an agent lacks what it needs to retrieve paged or truncated results correctly.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description names none of the three parameters. In particular, limit and cursor imply pagination of results, which the description never explains, leaving the agent to guess how to page through a status response.
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?
States a specific verb ("Inspect") and resource ("operation") and enumerates the states it covers (queued, completed, uncertain), which implicitly separates it from tb_operation_list and tb_operation_cancel. It does not name those siblings explicitly, so an agent must infer the distinction from the resource noun alone.
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?
"without repeating it" implies the key use case: when an operation's outcome is uncertain, check status rather than re-issuing the work. That is useful implied guidance, but there is no explicit statement of alternatives (e.g., tb_wait to block, tb_operation_list to enumerate) or of when-not to call.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.