Retrieve the body, sender, recipients, and attachment metadata of an Exchange email or draft using a message_ref or draft_ref; raw Exchange ItemIds are not accepted.
读取邮件或草稿的正文、收发件人和附件元数据。
message_ref 与 draft_ref 必须且只能提供一个；不接受底层 Exchange ItemId。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| draft_ref | No | ||
| message_ref | No | ||
| max_body_chars | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses a real constraint (exactly one of message_ref/draft_ref, no raw Exchange ItemId), which is useful, but says nothing about permissions, error behavior, or side effects. readOnly could be inferred but is not stated.
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?
Two compact sentences with no filler; the return-value summary is front-loaded and the constraint follows. Size is appropriate for the tool's simplicity. Minor deduction because the constraint sentence could be sharper.
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 needn't be explained in prose. But with zero annotations and zero schema description coverage, the description should say more about the ref formats, permission needs, and the max_body_chars parameter to be fully actionable. It covers the critical mutual-exclusivity rule but leaves other 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 schema provides only names/types and no semantic help. The description does add meaning: it clarifies that message_ref and draft_ref are mutually exclusive and exactly-one-required, and that raw Exchange ItemId is rejected. However, it never explains max_body_chars or the ref format, 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?
States a specific verb (读取) and resources (邮件或草稿) plus what fields are returned (正文、收发件人、附件元数据). Distinguishes itself from write siblings like save_mail_draft/edit_mail_draft by being a read operation, though there is no explicit sibling differentiation (e.g., vs search_mail).
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?
No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to alternatives. The only usage-adjacent note is a mutual-exclusivity constraint on identifiers, which is a parameter rule, not tool-selection guidance. An agent has no signal why it should pick read_mail over search_mail.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.