microsoft365__mail_search
[microsoft365 · risk:low] Search Mail via Outlook / Exchange, governed by Duvera.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Search query, e.g. 'invoices from Acme last month'. |
gateway
by ai.duvera
TDQS
B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions 'risk:low' and 'governed by Duvera', which hints at some access control but does not explain what happens during search (e.g., read-only, rate limits, auth requirements). The description fails to provide adequate transparency.
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. It front-loads the purpose and includes a risk tag. No redundant information.
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?
Given the tool has one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it does not explain what the search returns (e.g., list of emails with subject, sender, snippet) or any limitations like pagination. The agent would lack key details for proper invocation.
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?
The input schema already describes the single 'query' parameter with a useful example. The tool description does not add any further meaning beyond the schema. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description does not elevate it.
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 'Search Mail via Outlook / Exchange', identifying the specific resource (Mail) and platform (Microsoft 365). The verb 'Search' is appropriate. The sibling tools include gmail__mail_read and google_workspace__mail_search, so this distinguishes itself by platform, though the description could be more explicit about the platform difference.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention scenarios like 'Use for searching Microsoft 365 mail; for Gmail use google_workspace__mail_search'. The agent must infer usage solely from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
B3.3/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool is prefixed with its service name, and within each service, tools have distinct actions (e.g., mail_read vs. availability_find). The duvera tools cover different subdomains like dev, finance, and food with no overlap, making selection unambiguous.
Naming Consistency4/5
All tools follow the pattern service__action_object or service__category_action, using lowercase with underscores. The order of verb and noun varies slightly (e.g., package_track vs. boardingpass_show), but the naming is highly predictable and readable.
Tool Count4/5
With 52 tools, the server is large but justified as a gateway aggregating many external services. Each tool corresponds to a common task for its service, so no tool feels extraneous, though the total number is high.
Completeness3/5
The tool surface covers a wide array of services but only provides one or two basic operations per service (mostly read-only). While this suits a quick-lookup gateway, deeper workflows (e.g., creating or updating resources) are missing, leaving gaps for many use cases.