Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
m365-organizer

m365-organizer

by Denovarix
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

mail_add_sender_rule

Create inbox rules to route incoming mail from specific senders or domains into a designated folder automatically.

Instructions

Create an inbox rule routing future mail from senders/domains into dest_path.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "name": "<name>",
      "senders": "<senders>",
      "dest_path": "<dest_path>"
    },
    "name": "mail_add_sender_rule"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYes
sendersYes
dest_pathYes
mark_readNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations, so the description carries full burden; it usefully discloses that the rule applies to future mail (not backlog). However, it says nothing about name-collision behavior, whether dest_path must pre-exist, permission requirements, or what happens to conflicting rules — significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler, and the core scoping (future mail) comes early. It is arguably too terse for a 4-parameter mutation, but nothing is wasted or buried.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 4-param rule-creation tool with no annotations, the description leaves too much unexplained: two parameters are untouched, and behavior around rule conflicts and destination validation is absent. An output schema exists, so return values are the one thing it needn't cover.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% for 4 parameters. The description gestures at senders/domains and dest_path but never explains the required `name` or the `mark_read` flag, and gives no format hints (e.g., domain-only entries in senders).

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?

States a specific verb+resource ("Create an inbox rule") plus the concrete effect (route mail from senders/domains into dest_path), which distinguishes it from one-off siblings like mail_move_from_senders. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling, so it falls short of 5.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The phrase "future mail" implies a persistent rule rather than a one-time move, which is the key distinction from mail_move_from_senders. But there's no explicit when-to-use/when-not or named alternative, so the guidance is only implied.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools