tbird-mcp

by neil-zielsdorf

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Python

Local

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct action: listing accounts, listing folders, searching, reading, attachments, identities, sending, and reloading config. There is no overlap in functionality.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., list_accounts, search_mail, send_mail), making it easy to predict tool names.
Tool Count5/5
9 tools is well-scoped for a Thunderbird mail MCP, covering essential operations without being overwhelming or too sparse.
Completeness4/5
The set covers key mail operations (account listing, search, read, send, attachments) but is missing operations like create/delete folders or mark as read, which are minor gaps for the intended use.
Average 3.8/5 across 9 of 9 tools scored. Lowest: 2.6/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description only states action. Does not disclose whether the tool requires permissions, returns metadata vs content, or any side effects. Minimal behavioral info.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise at 4 words, no wasted text. However, it may be too brief, sacrificing valuable context for brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema, the description does not explain what the output contains beyond 'filenames'. Lacks details on pagination, sorting, or error cases. Incomplete for a complete understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%; description does not discuss the 'message_id' parameter at all. Agent receives no help understanding the parameter's format, meaning, or constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states it lists attachment filenames on a message. It distinguishes from 'extract_attachments' which likely downloads files, and 'read_message' which shows full content. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this over other tools like 'extract_attachments'. No context about prerequisites or use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description only indicates a read operation but lacks details on authentication, error behavior, or response structure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no redundancy, efficiently conveying the core purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with one parameter and an output schema, so the description covers the basics. However, it omits behavioral and usage context that would be helpful for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single parameter 'account' has no schema description (0% coverage). The description adds 'by email address', clarifying the parameter's meaning, but offers no format or constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'List mbox folder names for an account (by email address)', specifying a verb, resource, and scope. It distinguishes from siblings like list_accounts and search_mail, though it could be more explicit about its uniqueness.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so description must carry behavioral burden. It does not disclose side effects (e.g., overwriting, permissions, error conditions) or whether it modifies the message.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Very concise single sentence with clear action. Could add parameter details without significant bloat, but current brevity is efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple 2-param tool with no output schema, description is adequate but missing explanation for message_id and usage context. It covers the core action but not fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, requiring description to explain parameters. Only dest_dir is mentioned; message_id is not explained (e.g., format, source). Minimal value added beyond schema field names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Save' and the resource 'message's attachments', with the destination directory and return of file paths. It distinguishes from sibling 'list_attachments' which only lists metadata.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_attachments or read_message. No exclusions or context provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It correctly indicates a read-only operation and specifies the return format (headers + decoded body). However, it does not disclose other behavioral traits such as error handling, prerequisites, or rate limits, though for a simple read tool this is acceptable.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence front-loaded with the action and key details. No extraneous information, every word adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of sibling tools like search_mail and list_attachments, the description is sufficiently complete. It covers the main purpose, input linking, and output, though it does not mention optional parameters or error conditions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that message_id comes from search_mail, adding meaning beyond the schema. However, the prefer_html parameter remains unexplained, so the description only partially addresses the two parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'read', the resource 'one message', and specifies identification via 'id from search_mail'. It also describes the output as 'headers + decoded body'. This distinguishes it from siblings like search_mail (which returns a list) and list_attachments.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies that this tool should be used after search_mail to get full message content. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with alternatives, so it provides clear context but no exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears full burden. It discloses key behaviors: sending, filing a copy, default dry_run, and an important provider limitation. Could add error handling details, but current disclosure is solid.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Efficiently structured with purpose, prerequisites, and a safety callout. Every sentence adds value, no fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers the main purpose and safety, but with no output schema and many optional parameters undocumented in the description, the agent may miss how to use CC, BCC, attachments, or HTML. Still adequate for a send operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage and 9 parameters, the description only adds meaning to from_address (must be configured) and dry_run (default True, safety). CC, BCC, attachments, and html are left unexplained despite being non-trivial.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states the tool sends mail from configured identities and files a copy in Sent. Distinct from all sibling tools which focus on reading, searching, and listing.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides clear prerequisites (from_address must be a configured identity) and limitations (Hotmail/Outlook not supported). Dry_run safety note tells when to actually send. No explicit when-not-to-use, but as the only send tool, this is acceptable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It implies a read-only operation by stating 'discovered from Thunderbird' and describes what is returned (accounts with on-disk store). However, it does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., whether it triggers a refresh).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, 12 words, front-loaded with the action verb and resource. No unnecessary information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Has an output schema, so description does not need to detail return values. Covers essential context (source, what is listed). Could be more precise about the format or limitations (e.g., filter criteria), but given zero parameters, it is sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters exist in the input schema, so description does not need to provide parameter details. Baseline score of 4 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description specifies the verb 'List' and resource 'incoming mail accounts' with source ('Thunderbird') and additional detail ('with their on-disk store'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_folders, which lists folders.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives. While the resource name makes it clear it's for listing accounts, the tool would benefit from noting that for folder or mail operations, siblings should be used.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool returns a list with a per-identity send status ('whether each can send right now'), which is a behavioral trait. For a zero-parameter tool, this is adequate, though it does not mention authentication or rate limits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and behavior without any unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description is complete enough. It covers the essential information: listing identities and their send readiness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are no parameters, and the input schema is empty (100% coverage). With zero params, the baseline is 4, and the description does not need to add anything beyond what the schema provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists 'send-from identities' and includes the specific behavior of indicating whether each can send 'right now'. It uses the verb 'list' and the resource 'identities', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_accounts (accounts) and list_folders (folders).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for checking send capabilities of identities, but it provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not mention alternatives or contexts where sibling tools might be more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool re-reads two specific configuration files, implying it refreshes application state. For a zero-parameter, non-destructive read operation, this is adequate behavioral disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Exactly one sentence, no fluff. Every word is meaningful and adds to understanding.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter tool with no output schema and a straightforward operation (reload config), the description is complete. It specifies the files involved and the trigger condition. Could optionally mention that existing connections remain active, but not required for basic understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Tool has no parameters, and schema coverage is trivially 100%. Description adds value by specifying which files are reloaded, beyond the empty schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the action ('Re-read') and the specific resources ('Thunderbird prefs.js and credentials.toml'), and provides context ('after editing either'). It distinguishes from sibling tools which perform list, search, read, or send operations on mail/folders, not config reload.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Description explicitly states when to use the tool ('after editing either'), providing clear context. It does not mention when not to use it or alternatives, but given the simplicity and uniqueness among siblings, this is sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description effectively discloses behavioral traits: filters are ANDed case-insensitive substring matches, date format, performance impact for large folders, and return type (summaries with opaque id). Minor omission: error handling for missing folders or no results.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise (~80 words) and well-structured: one-line purpose, filter details, date format, account behavior, return type, and performance advice. No unnecessary words; every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 10 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers core behavior, filter logic, and performance notes. It explains return type (summaries with opaque id) which compensates for missing output schema. Could mention pagination or result ordering.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaning for key parameters (since/before take ISO dates, limit defaults, account defaults to all accounts, folder defaults to INBOX). It explains filter behavior (ANDed substring match) that applies to all text parameters. Could be more explicit about each parameter's purpose.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool searches a folder's mbox, explains it searches across accounts and returns summaries with an opaque id. It distinguishes from siblings like list_accounts and read_message by focusing on search functionality.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides guidance on when to use (searching mail), mentions performance considerations and suggests narrowing with account and limit. It implies alternatives like read_message for full content via 'opaque id for read/extract', but lacks explicit when-not-to-use statements.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![tbird-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/neil-zielsdorf/tbird-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/neil-zielsdorf/tbird-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![tbird-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/neil-zielsdorf/tbird-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/neil-zielsdorf/tbird-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/neil-zielsdorf/tbird-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server