Skip to main content
Glama

reply-mail-message

reply-mail-message
Destructive

Reply to email senders with JSON or MIME format, preserving HTML formatting and sending directly or as a draft.

Instructions

Reply to the sender of a message using either JSON or MIME format. When using JSON format:

  • Specify either a comment or the body property of the message parameter. Specifying both will return an HTTP 400 Bad Request error.

  • If the original message specifies a recipient in the replyTo property, per Internet Message Format (RFC 2822), send the reply to the recipients in replyTo and not the recipient in the from property. When using MIME format:

  • Provide the applicable Internet message headers and the MIME content, all encoded in base64 format in the request body.

  • Add any attachments and S/MIME properties to the MIME content. This method saves the message in the Sent Items folder. Alternatively, create a draft to reply to an existing message and send it later.

💡 TIP: Reply to an email preserving full HTML formatting. The 'comment' field is your reply text. Do NOT reconstruct the email manually.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bodyYes
confirmNoFor destructive operations when the confirm gate is enabled (MS365_MCP_REQUIRE_CONFIRM=true; off by default). Set to true only after the user has explicitly approved this action. When the gate is on, calls without confirm: true return { error: "confirmation_required" } without touching user data.
messageIdYesValue for the 'messageId' path segment. Pass it under the name 'messageId', not as 'id'. Use the 'id' field of the message object as returned by Microsoft Graph.
includeHeadersNoInclude response headers (including ETag) in the response metadata
excludeResponseNoExclude the full response body and only return success or failure indication
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, and the description confirms the side effect by noting it 'saves the message in the Sent Items folder' and sends a reply. It also discloses the replyTo precedence rule and the HTTP 400 error condition, adding valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-organized with bullets and sections, front-loading the main purpose. Each sentence carries information; the tip at the end is practical though slightly tangential. It could be tightened, but the structure helps readability.

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 complex mail-reply operation with two formats, multiple constraints, and an alternative workflow, the description covers all key aspects: format selection, parameter constraints, replyTo behavior, save location, draft alternative, and a practical tip. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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

Parameters4/5

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

With 80% schema coverage, the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds essential semantics by explaining the mutual exclusivity of 'Comment' and 'body' in JSON mode, and by detailing the base64-encoded MIME format requirement—details not present in the schema.

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 clearly states the action ('Reply to the sender of a message') and specifies the two output formats (JSON and MIME). It distinguishes itself from the related create-reply-draft tool by explicitly presenting the draft alternative, making the tool's unique role apparent.

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?

It gives explicit guidance on when to use JSON vs MIME, the constraint of comment vs body, and replyTo handling. It mentions the alternative of creating a draft, but doesn't explicitly compare to reply-all-mail-message or forward-mail-message, leaving some ambiguity about recipient-scope differences.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/A-Impact-Pavel/ms365-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server