Check quarantined Microsoft Defender/EOP email messages by recipient, sender, or hours back to locate blocked mail and diagnose delivery issues.
Checks quarantined messages in Microsoft Defender / EOP by recipient, sender, or hours back.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page_size | No | ||
| hours_back | No | ||
| sender_address | No | ||
| recipient_address | 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Checks' implies a read-only operation, but it omits any mention of permissions, throttling, whether the check is exhaustive or paginated, and what a null/default filter does. For a tool with zero annotation coverage this is a significant gap.
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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately terse, though the same brevity leaves required parameter context uncovered.
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 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and four parameters, the definition is under-specified: page_size is unmentioned, filter formats and defaults are absent, and behavioral context (auth, read-only nature, result scope) is missing. An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required, but the input-side and usage gaps remain substantial.
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%, so the description must compensate for all four parameters. It names recipient, sender, and hours back, but omits page_size entirely and adds no syntax, format, or default value details (e.g., hours_back defaults to 48). Partial compensation is not enough for a 3.
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 clear verb ('Checks') and resource ('quarantined messages') scoped to Microsoft Defender / EOP, and names the filter dimensions (recipient, sender, hours back). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the similarly themed sibling m365_message_trace, so it falls short of a 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 hints at how it can be filtered but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like m365_message_trace. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or context about the scenario that selects this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.