List Outlook folder hierarchy with item count and unread mail count for each folder, providing a clear overview of mailbox structure and unread messages.
Liệt kê cây folder của Outlook kèm số item và số mail chưa đọc.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose meaningful return context by saying the folder tree includes item counts and unread mail counts. It does not explicitly state read-only behavior or access prerequisites, but for a parameterless list operation this is a moderate rather than severe 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?
The description is a single, tight sentence with the action and resource up front, followed by the two useful counts. There is no filler or repetition of the tool name.
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?
For a parameterless listing tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential behavior: it returns the Outlook folder tree with item and unread counts. It is slightly incomplete in not stating the scope of the tree (e.g., all folders vs. accessible folders) or any access caveats, but the output schema likely fills in return details.
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 input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There are no parameter semantics to explain, and the description appropriately focuses on what the tool returns rather than input details.
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 names a specific verb and resource: listing the Outlook folder tree, and additionally specifies the included data (item count and unread mail count). This clearly separates it from siblings like read_mail, search_mail, get_thread, and read_attachment, which all operate on individual messages rather than the folder hierarchy.
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 implies use when an agent needs an overview of Outlook folders and their counts, and the sibling tools are clearly message-oriented, so the intended context is reasonably inferable. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide any exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.