Local MCP

Microsoft 365 Reply Email

m365_reply_email

Use this when the user wants to reply to a Microsoft 365 email (message ID from m365_list_emails). Requires a connected M365 account. Shows a preview first — set confirm=true to actually send. For replying to a message found in Apple Mail, use reply_email.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	Message ID to reply to (from m365_list_emails or m365_read_email)
`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.
`confirm`	No	Set to true to actually send (default: shows preview only)
`message`	Yes	Your reply text
`reply_all`	No	If true, reply to all recipients (default: false)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

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

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), and the description adds genuinely new behavior: the preview-first send gate and the account-connection prerequisite. It doesn't mention threading behavior or how reply_all interacts with the preview, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Three compact sentences with the action and ID source front-loaded, followed by the prerequisite, the confirmation gate, and the disambiguation rule. No filler and nothing repeated from structured fields.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a mutation tool with an output schema, the description covers the auth prerequisite, the send-vs-preview semantics, and the sibling disambiguation — the pieces the schema and annotations cannot express. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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%, so all five parameters (id, account, confirm, message, reply_all) are already documented, including the confirm default and account resolution options. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the 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 and resource ('reply to a Microsoft 365 email'), scopes the source of the ID to m365_list_emails, and explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling reply_email for Apple Mail. An agent can pick between the two without opening either schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives when-to-use (replying to an M365 message), when-not (Apple Mail messages go to reply_email), a prerequisite (connected M365 account), and the safety flow (preview unless confirm=true). All routing conditions are explicit.

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.