list_m365_people_insightsList 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.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Number of people to return (default 20, max 50) |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | No | ||
| people | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations by explaining that results are computed from communication patterns, collaboration history, and org chart, and that they are personalized ('most relevant to you'). This helps the agent understand how the tool behaves.
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?
The description is extremely concise: two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the action and derivation criteria, the second adds practical use cases. Front-loaded with purpose.
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?
Given the tool has one optional parameter, an output schema exists, and annotations cover safety, the description provides sufficient context for an agent to decide when to invoke it. It could be slightly more explicit about what kind of people are included (e.g., manager, direct reports, etc.), but the stated criteria cover the main sources of relevance.
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?
The schema already provides a clear description for the single parameter 'limit' (number of people, default 20, max 50). The description adds no further parameter details. With 100% schema coverage, baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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?
The description clearly states it lists 'the people most relevant to you in Microsoft 365' and specifies the criteria (communication patterns, collaboration history, org chart). It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_contacts and search_m365_directory by focusing on relevance scoring rather than exhaustive listing or search.
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?
The description mentions typical use cases ('meeting prep and contact enrichment'), providing implied usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or suggest alternative tools like list_contacts or search_m365_directory when different needs arise.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
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.
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.
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.
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.