Audits external MailContacts in Exchange Online directory, optionally filtered by target domain. Use it to identify and review external contacts by domain.
Audits external MailContacts in Exchange Online directory, optionally filtered by target domain.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain_filter | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but adds almost nothing beyond the tool name. It does not state whether the audit is read-only, what permissions are required, what the audit returns, or any rate limits, leaving significant behavioral gaps.
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?
The definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no redundant or filler content. Every word contributes to the core purpose and filter behavior.
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?
Given the low complexity (one optional parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate for an agent to understand the tool's basic function. However, it omits parameter format details and behavioral context such as read-only nature, which would be needed for confident invocation without annotations.
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?
The description clarifies that the single parameter acts as an optional filter by target domain, which adds meaning beyond the bare schema name. However, with 0% schema description coverage, it does not specify the expected format (e.g., 'example.com' vs '@example.com'), so compensation is partial.
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 states a specific verb (audits) and resource (external MailContacts in Exchange Online directory), which is more precise than most sibling tools. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from other audit tools such as compliance_audit_* or m365_audit_ex_employees, so it falls short of a clear 5.
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?
The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it state any prerequisites or exclusions. It only mentions an optional filter, which is parameter-related, not usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.