Skip to main content
Glama

Outlook Contacts

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Outlook List Contacts

outlook_list_contacts
Read-onlyIdempotent

List contacts from an Outlook / Microsoft 365 address book. Returns compact contact records (name, email addresses, phone numbers, company, job title). Supports keyword search across the contact fields. Use to browse a user's saved Outlook / Microsoft 365 contacts.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
topNoMaximum number of contacts to return (default 50, max 100).
searchNoOptional free-text keyword search across the contacts (name, email, company, etc.).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idemponent, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating that results are 'compact contact records' with specific fields and that keyword search spans contact fields, which helps set expectations even without an output schema.

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 four short sentences with no filler: purpose, return shape, search capability, and usage context each get one focused sentence. Information is front-loaded, and the mild repetition of 'Outlook / Microsoft 365' is negligible.

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 simple read-only list tool with two optional parameters, this description is complete: it states the resource, the return record fields, the search behavior, and a concrete usage case. The schema provides defaults, max, and examples, and annotations cover side-effect safety, so no critical information is missing for correct invocation.

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?

The input schema describes both parameters fully and with 100% coverage, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only paraphrases the search paramter by mentioning keyword search across contact fields; it adds no additional paramter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 gives a specific verb ('List') and resource ('Outlook / Microsoft 365 address book') and states what the returned records contain, so an agent can immediately understand the tool's core purpose. It does not explicitly differentiate the tool from sibling tools like outlook_get_contact or outlook_search_people, which prevents a 5.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The final sentence ('Use to browse a user's saved Outlook / Microsoft 365 contacts') gives a clear intended context for when the tool is appropriate. However, it names no alternatives and provides no when-not-to-use guidance, so the routing decision is left partially implicit.

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

All Outlook Contacts 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

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

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.

Naming Consistency4/5

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.

Tool Count2/5

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.

Completeness1/5

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.

Resources