Trace message delivery events in Exchange Online by sender, recipient, status, and time window to diagnose mail flow issues.
Traces message delivery events in Exchange Online by sender, recipient, status, and time window.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| hours_back | No | ||
| result_size | No | ||
| status_filter | 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 disclosure burden, yet it only states what is filtered. It never says the operation is read-only, whether it requires admin/exchange permissions, latency of trace results, or that all parameters are optional with defaults.
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 tight sentence that front-loads the verb and resource with no filler. It is efficient, though it could have spent a few more words on parameter/value detail without becoming bloated.
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?
With an output schema present, return values need not be described, and the filter dimensions are covered. However, for a five-parameter tool with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the definition omits result_size semantics and the read-only/permission profile, leaving real gaps.
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; it names four of the five inputs (sender, recipient, status, and the time window implied by hours_back), which is genuinely useful. The fifth parameter, result_size, is not mentioned, and no format hints (e.g. address syntax, allowed status values) are given.
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 gives a specific verb ('traces') plus resource ('message delivery events in Exchange Online') and enumerates the filter dimensions. No sibling tool overlaps with message tracing, so the agent can place it easily, though it never names a sibling to distinguish against.
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 versus alternatives such as graph_list_recent_messages or m365_check_quarantine, nor any prerequisite or when-not-to-use guidance. Usage must be inferred entirely from the purpose sentence.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.