Local MCP

List Microsoft 365 People Insights

list_m365_people_insights

Read-only

List the people most relevant to you in Microsoft 365 — based on your communication patterns, collaboration history, and org chart. Useful for meeting prep and contact enrichment.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No	Number of people to return (default 20, max 50)
`account`	No	Which connected Microsoft 365 account to use: its email (UPN), its id from list_m365_accounts, or its display name when unique. Leave it out to use the default account.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`count`	No
`people`	No
`account`	No	The email (UPN) of the Microsoft 365 account this call used.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedOct 5, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / account

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Which connected Microsoft 365 account to use: its email (UPN), its id from list_m365_accounts, or its display name when unique. Leave it out to use the default account.",
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / account

Added value: +{
+  "description": "The email (UPN) of the Microsoft 365 account this call used.",
+  "type": "string"
+}

First observedJun 30, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context: the results are derived from communication patterns, collaboration history, and org chart. It does not mention whether results are stable/cached or how they relate to the limit parameter.

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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by the ranking basis and use cases. No filler, though it is thin on actionable detail rather than padded.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description supplies the ranking semantics and use cases; the only minor gap is the lack of disambiguation from sibling people/contact tools.

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 100% and both parameters (limit with default/max, account selectors) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no further parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource ("List the people most relevant to you in Microsoft 365") and adds the ranking basis, so an agent understands what the tool produces. It stops short of distinguishing itself from near-tools like get_m365_person, m365_list_contacts, or search_m365_directory, which could cause selection ambiguity.

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?

"Useful for meeting prep and contact enrichment" gives two concrete use cases, which is real guidance. However there is no when-not guidance and no mention of the sibling tools (contacts, directory search) that an agent must choose between, so routing remains implied.

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

All Local MCP tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.