outlook_get_profileGet the signed-in user's Microsoft 365 / Outlook profile: display name, email address, and user principal name. Use to identify whose contacts and address book are connected.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the 'signed-in user' scope and a sense of the returned data, but does not mention potential auth failures or exact response shape; with annotations present, this is adequate but not exceptional.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, no filler, with the action and resource front-loaded and the practical use case in the second sentence. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter read-only profile getter, the description is complete: it names the resource, the returned identity fields, and the use case. Annotations handle the safety profile, and no output schema is needed for such a simple tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are zero parameters, so the schema has nothing to document and the description naturally does not need to add parameter meaning. The description does mention the profile fields returned, which is semantically useful for the tool's output even though there is no output schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb ('Get'), the exact resource ('the signed-in user's Microsoft 365 / Outlook profile'), and the returned fields (display name, email address, UPN). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling contact tools like outlook_get_contact and outlook_list_contacts.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'Use to identify whose contacts and address book are connected' gives a concrete scenario for when to invoke this tool. It implies differentiation from the contact-focused sibling tools, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Several tools are near-duplicates by name and function, notably ask_pipeworx vs ask_pipeworx_beta, and the dense Polymarket family (polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_kalshi_spread). Long descriptions help, but an agent cannot reliably pick between these without reading closely.
Almost all names are lowercase_snake_case and mostly verb-leading (discover_tools, resolve_entity, unsubscribe), but there are noun-first exceptions (entity_profile, recent_changes, pipework_trending) and several phrasal or compound forms. This is a minor deviation from a clean verb_noun pattern rather than a chaotic mix.
31 tools is over the heavy threshold, and the set feels bloated: multiple query routers, a half-dozen overlapping Polymarket tools, and two AI-visibility probes that could be merged. The count is especially hard to justify for a server named Tools 'OutLook Contacts', since none are contact management.
For the server's stated domain, Outlook Contacts, there are zero tools in that domain — no create contact, no list contacts, no update, no delete, no folders or mailboxes. Even though the actual Pipework toolkit is broad for its own domain, this set fails its declared intend domain entirely.