Local MCP

Microsoft 365 Search Contacts

m365_search_contacts

Read-only

Search contacts in your Microsoft 365 address book by name, email, or company.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`query`	Yes	Search term — name, email, or company
`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

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety and open-world profile is covered. The description adds only that the search is scoped to the address book; it says nothing about account scoping behavior, result limits, or empty-result behavior. Adequate but thin against the annotation baseline.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no padding; the verb and resource lead immediately. Nothing to trim.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, in a namespace crowded with contact-search and contact-list tools from multiple providers, the description omits the routing context an agent needs to choose it confidently.

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% with only two parameters, and the schema already explains query fields and the account fallback-to-default semantics. The description adds no syntax, matching rules, or partial-match guidance 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.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (Search) and resource (contacts in your Microsoft 365 address book) plus the three queryable fields. It does not name the closely related siblings m365_list_contacts or search_m365_directory, so an agent still has to infer which is right, but the purpose itself is unambiguous.

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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing. With siblings like m365_list_contacts, m365_get_contact, search_m365_directory and search_contacts in the same namespace, guidance on which to pick would be genuinely valuable and is absent.

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.