Skip to main content
Glama

Outlook Contacts

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Outlook Search People

outlook_search_people
Read-onlyIdempotent

Search the people most relevant to the signed-in Outlook / Microsoft 365 user — colleagues, frequent email contacts, and people in their organization — ranked by relevance. Returns matching people with name, email addresses, job title, and company. Use to find a coworker or frequent contact by name even if they are not in the saved address book.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
topNoMaximum number of people to return (default 25).
queryYesFree-text query to match against relevant people (name, email, etc.).

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Added

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description is not required to restate safety. It adds helpful behavioral context about relevance ranking, available match fields, and organizational scope. It does not cover return format, errors, or pagination beyond what the schema already provides via the 'top' parameter.

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 two sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the operation, scope, ranking, and return fields; the second sentence gives a concrete usage scenario. Every sentence contributes useful information.

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?

For a low-complexity, read-only search tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what the tool does, what inputs are used for, and what kind of results are returned. The main gap is the absence of explicit output format detail, but the description already names the return fields and the schema covers result limits.

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%, so the schema already documents both 'query' and 'top' adequately. The description restates that the query is free-text and matches names/emails, but adds little meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the structured schema carries the semantic load.

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 names a specific verb ('Search'), defines the resource as people relevant to the signed-in Outlook/Microsoft 365 user, and explains the ranking basis. It also differentiates from sibling contact tools by noting that matches need not be in the saved address book.

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 description explicitly states when to use the tool: to find a coworker or frequent contact by name. It implies a distinction from contact-list tools by mentioning 'even if they are not in the saved address book,' but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it.

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