Skip to main content
Glama

local-mcp

by com.local-mcp

Microsoft 365 Search Emails

m365_search_emails
Read-only

Use this when the user wants to find emails in their Microsoft 365 / Outlook mailbox via the cloud — requires a connected M365 account. By default searches sender, subject, AND body (Microsoft Graph's own $search default). Pass scope="metadata" to search only sender/subject (faster, no body scan), or scope="body" to search only the message body. For accounts added to the Mac's Mail.app, use search_emails.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMax results (default 20, max 50)
queryYesSearch query, e.g. 'budget Q2', 'from:alice@contoso.com', 'subject:invoice'
scopeNo"all" (default — sender+subject+body, today's behavior), "metadata" (sender+subject only), or "body" (body only).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
countNo
queryNo
emailsNo
search_scopeNo
search_backendNo
search_coverageNo

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds detail on default search behavior (sender, subject, body) and scope options, which is useful context beyond annotations. However, it doesn't mention potential speed/performance trade-offs or auth handling beyond 'requires a connected M365 account' which is already implied.

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?

Concise, three sentences with clear structure. Front-loads main use case, then explains scope. Each sentence adds value, but the mention of 'today's behavior' in schema might be redundant.

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?

Has output schema (context signal), so no need to describe return format. Description covers use case, scope options, and alternative routing. Given simplicity (3 params, no nested), complete for an agent to call correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. But the description adds meaningful context: explains scope enum in terms of fields searched and performance implications ('faster, no body scan'), and gives examples for query. This goes beyond the schema's description, earning a 4.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: finding emails in Microsoft 365 cloud mailbox. It distinguishes from search_emails (for Mac Mail.app) and indicates a specific verb 'find emails' with clear resource. The scope options add specificity.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: when user wants to find emails in M365/Outlook via cloud, and explicitly says to use search_emails for accounts added to Mac's Mail.app. This directly addresses alternatives and provides a clear exclusion.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All local-mcp toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

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.

Naming Consistency4/5

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.

Tool Count2/5

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.

Completeness3/5

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.

Resources