Onplana

send_outlook_message

Create a draft email in the authorized user's Outlook mailbox. Draft-only: it saves a draft and returns its id for the user to review and send themselves from Outlook — it never transmits. Recipients are optional (the human can fill them in when reviewing). Per-message external recipient cap: 10. The draft is owned by the connected user, not the agent.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "subject": "<subject>",
      "body": "<body>"
    },
    "name": "send_outlook_message"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`cc`	No
`to`	No	TO recipients (RFC 5322 addresses). Optional — leave empty for the human to fill in.
`bcc`	No
`body`	Yes
`subject`	Yes
`bodyContentType`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedOct 19, 2026

removedInput schema / properties / confirm

Removed value: -{
-  "type": "boolean"
-}

removedInput schema / properties / mode

Removed value: -{
-  "enum": [
-    "draft",
-    "send"
-  ],
-  "type": "string"
-}

changedInput schema / properties / to / description

Previous value: -"TO recipients (RFC 5322 addresses)."New value: +"TO recipients (RFC 5322 addresses). Optional — leave empty for the human to fill in."

AddedJun 9, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=false. The description adds important behavioral context beyond those annotations: it returns an id, never transmits, has a per-message external recipient cap of 10, and the draft is owned by the connected user rather than the agent.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and then adds only relevant constraints: draft-only behavior, optional recipients, recipient cap, and ownership. Every sentence adds useful information, and there is no wasted text.

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?

Given the annotations and lack of an output schema, the description covers essential call behavior: purpose, draft-only semantics, return id, recipient optionality, and ownership. It remains slightly incomplete because it does not explain bodyContentType or clarify cc/bcc semantics, though the schema partly covers required fields.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is low at 17%, with only the 'to' parameter documented in the schema. The description adds that recipients are optional and mentions an external recipient cap, but does not explain cc/bcc distinction, subject/body requirements, or bodyContentType's text/html enum, leaving much parameter meaning undocumented.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: create a draft email in the authorized user's Outlook mailbox. It also corrects the potentially misleading tool name by clarifying 'Draft-only ... it never transmits.' However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling compose or messaging tools.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage by stating the draft is for the user to review and send themselves from Outlook, and that it never transmits. It does not name alternatives or give explicit when-not-to-use guidance. Usage is inferable but not fully specified.

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

All Onplana 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.