Fetch recent emails from a specified Microsoft 365 mailbox using Microsoft Graph API. Provide the user principal name (UPN) and optionally the number of messages to return.
Fetches recent emails from a mailbox via Microsoft Graph API.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| top | No | ||
| user_upn | Yes |
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing about required permissions, ordering, what 'recent' means quantitatively, or pagination limits. For a Graph API read tool this leaves key operational behavior undocumented.
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?
A single compact sentence with the resource and mechanism front-loaded and no wasted words. It is efficient, though brevity here comes at the cost of the missing detail noted elsewhere.
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?
An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but with zero annotations, 0% parameter coverage, and no definition of 'recent' or result limits, the definition is too thin for an agent to call it correctly with confidence.
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 description coverage is 0% for both parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. 'user_upn' is only obliquely implied by 'from a mailbox' and the expected UPN format is unstated, while 'top' (default 10) is never mentioned or explained.
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?
States a specific verb (fetches) and resource (recent emails from a mailbox) plus the backing API, which clearly separates it from sibling writers like graph_send_email or config tools. It stops short of naming how it differs from adjacent readers such as m365_message_trace or m365_list_inbox_rules.
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?
There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives like m365_message_trace, m365_get_mailbox_info, or the other mailbox-related siblings. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.