Local MCP

Microsoft 365 List Contacts

m365_list_contacts

Read-only

List contacts from your Microsoft 365 / Outlook address book.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No	Max contacts to return (default 50, max 100)
`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
`query`	No
`account`	No	The email (UPN) of the Microsoft 365 account this call used.
`contacts`	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

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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 fully covered elsewhere. The description adds no behavioral context of its own: no pagination behavior, no note that it hits the live address book, no auth/account prerequisites. It essentially restates the title.

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?

A single efficient sentence with no filler and the resource front-loaded. It is not padded, but it is arguably too terse to earn a 5 given the crowded sibling space it must compete in.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and annotations cover safety. For a simple two-param list tool this is minimally adequate, but the lack of sibling disambiguation leaves a real gap in a namespace containing several contact-listing 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%: both limit (default 50, max 100) and account (UPN, id, or display name) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (contacts from the Microsoft 365 / Outlook address book), which is unambiguous on its own. However, it offers no differentiation from near-identical siblings such as list_contacts, search_contacts, and m365_search_contacts, so an agent cannot tell from the text alone why it would pick this one.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus m365_search_contacts, search_contacts, or get_contact, and no mention of prerequisites like a connected account. The only usage hint is implicit in the account parameter's schema description, which the description proper does not reinforce.

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.