outlook_get_messageGet the full content of a single Outlook / Microsoft 365 email message by its ID, including subject, sender, recipients (to/cc), received time, and the full body (HTML or text). Use after outlook_list_messages or outlook_search_messages to read an email in full.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The ID of the email message to retrieve (from a list or search result). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark the operation as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive; the description adds useful retrieval behavior by specifying the exact fields and the full HTML/text body returned. It does not cover error cases or auth requirements, but that is beyond the simple read semantics and the annotations carry the safety profile.
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 tight sentences: the first states the action and output, the second gives the operational workflow. Every word earns its place and no structured field is repeated.
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 one-parameter read tool with strong annotations, the description is sufficiently complete: it states what is retrieved and when to use it. It stops short of a 5 only because it does not mention whether attachments or metadata such as importance are included, and there is no output schema to clarify the return shape.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%: the single 'id' parameter is already documented as the ID from a list or search result. The description reinforces that the ID identifies the single message, but does not add format or lifecycle details beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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?
The description uses a specific verb 'Get' with a precise resource, 'a single Outlook / Microsoft 365 email message by its ID,' and enumerates the returned fields (subject, sender, recipients, received time, full body). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling listing/searching tools such as outlook_list_messages and outlook_search_messages.
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?
It explicitly frames the tool as the follow-up step after outlook_list_messages or outlook_search_messages to read an email in full. It does not enumerate exclusions or alternative tools beyond that workflow, so it falls just short of a 5.
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.