Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
m365-organizer

m365-organizer

by Denovarix
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

mail_folder_tree

List every Outlook mail folder with its full path, total message count, and unread count to help you inspect and organize mailbox structure.

Instructions

List every mail folder with its path, total and unread counts.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "mail_folder_tree"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the payload shape (path, total and unread counts), which hints at a read-only operation, but never states that it is side-effect free, whether it hits the network, or how large trees are handled.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; every clause (folders, path, total counts, unread counts) conveys real 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the zero-parameter schema is trivial. The one gap is the absence of any read-only/scope context, which matters only mildly for a simple listing tool.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The schema is an empty object and the description correctly implies no inputs are needed.

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 ('List') and resource ('every mail folder') and even names the fields returned (path, total, unread counts). It implicitly contrasts with sibling mail_create_folder, but never explicitly disambiguates from other list-style siblings such as mail_list_rules or drive_list.

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?

Usage is only implied by the verb 'List' — there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over mail_list_rules, mail_sender_stats, or drive_list. For a zero-parameter read tool the inference is easy, but no guidance or exclusions are actually written.

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