Local MCP

Microsoft 365 Get Contact

m365_get_contact

Read-only

Get full details of a specific Microsoft 365 contact by ID. Get the ID from m365_list_contacts or m365_search_contacts.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	Contact ID from m365_list_contacts or m365_search_contacts
`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
`id`	No
`name`	No
`notes`	No
`title`	No
`emails`	No
`mobile`	No
`phones`	No
`account`	No	The email (UPN) of the Microsoft 365 account this call used.
`company`	No
`surname`	No
`given_name`	No
`home_address`	No
`business_address`	No

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

A4/5.0

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 structurally. The description adds only the prerequisite-chaining behavior (ID must come from a sibling tool) and says nothing about permissions, account scoping side effects, or result shape. With annotations carrying the safety burden, a 3 is appropriate.

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 short sentences, zero filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded before the prerequisite note. Every clause earns its place.

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-value detail is unnecessary, and annotations cover safety. The description supplies the ID-sourcing prerequisite and account handling is fully covered by the schema, leaving little missing for a simple 2-parameter read tool.

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%: both 'id' and 'account' are fully documented in the schema, including account resolution fallbacks (UPN, id, display name, default). The description repeats the ID provenance but adds no semantics beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('full details of a specific Microsoft 365 contact') scoped by ID. It also names the sibling tools (m365_list_contacts, m365_search_contacts) as the source of the ID, so an agent can tell it apart from those list/search tools without opening any schema.

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 second sentence gives clear operational context: you must obtain the ID from m365_list_contacts or m365_search_contacts first, which tells the agent this is the lookup-by-ID step rather than a discovery step. It does not state explicit exclusions or what to do when multiple contacts match, so it falls short of a full 5.

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.