Skip to main content
Glama

local-mcp

by com.local-mcp

Get Microsoft 365 Person

get_m365_person
Read-only

Get detailed information about a specific person in your Microsoft 365 directory by their user ID or email address. Use 'me' to get the currently authenticated user's profile.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesUser ID (GUID), email address (UPN), or 'me' for the authenticated user, e.g. 'sarah@contoso.com', 'a1b2c3d4-...', or 'me'

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idNo
upnNo
nameNo
emailNo
titleNo
mobileNo
officeNo
phonesNo
departmentNo

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the tool is clearly safe and read-only. The description reinforces this with 'Get', but adds no extra behavioral context like error handling or what constitutes 'detailed information'. The description does not contradict annotations.

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?

Two concise sentences: first defines purpose and input, second provides a usage hint. No wasted words; front-loaded with the verb 'Get'.

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 a single parameter with full schema coverage and an output schema existing, the description sufficiently clarifies the tool's purpose and input variations. It could optionally note that it returns a directory profile, but the output schema likely covers that.

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?

The schema covers the parameter 'id' with full description (100% coverage). The description adds extra value by explaining the 'me' special value as a way to get the current user's profile, which goes beyond the schema's enumeration.

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 'Get detailed information about a specific person' with resource 'Microsoft 365 directory', and distinguishes from sibling tools like m365_get_contact by specifying 'directory' rather than contacts. It also provides three identification methods: user ID, email, or 'me'.

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 tells when to use the tool (to retrieve a person's details) and gives specific identifier examples, but it does not explicitly compare with alternatives (e.g., search_m365_directory, m365_get_contact) or state when not to use it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All local-mcp toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Many tools are clearly distinct per app (e.g., chrome_*, safari_*, m365_*), but there is notable overlap between generic file tools like `file_list` and `finder_list`, both listing files; `search_contacts` and `list_contacts` serve similar purposes; `report_friction` and `report_problem` both send feedback to the team. The large number of tools with similar purposes in different domains creates moderate ambiguity for an agent.

Naming Consistency4/5

The naming convention is very consistent overall: most tools follow a `{app}_action` or `verb_noun` pattern (e.g., `chrome_click`, `create_calendar_event`, `list_reminders`). There are minor deviations like `lmcp_install_upgrade` (two verbs) and `complete_omnifocus_task` vs. `complete_reminder` (inconsistent verb placement). Still, the pattern is predictable and readable across the full set.

Tool Count2/5

With 225 tools, the surface is extremely large and heavy. While it covers many distinct domains (browsers, mail, calendar, files, notes, reminders, video editing, web automation, etc.), the sheer number makes it hard to navigate and likely includes many rarely-used tools. This is far beyond the well-scoped range of 3-15 tools and feels excessive even for a 'local everything' MCP server.

Completeness3/5

For many app integrations, the tool set provides solid CRUD coverage (e.g., Calendar has create, read, update, delete; Apple Notes has create, read, update, list, search; OmniFocus has create, list, search, complete). However, some areas are incomplete: for example, there is no tool to create a new Mail folder or delete notes. The 'web' tools lack a clear update/delete for saved sessions. The suite is broad but has notable gaps within individual domains.

Resources