Skip to main content
Glama
Softeria

Microsoft 365 MCP Server

by Softeria

reply-all-mail-message

reply-all-mail-message
Destructive

Reply to all recipients of an email message with a comment or full body, preserving HTML formatting. Sends immediately or creates a draft for later.

Instructions

Reply to all recipients of a message using either JSON or MIME format. When using JSON format:

  • Specify either a comment or the body property of the message parameter. Specifying both will return an HTTP 400 Bad Request error.

  • If the original message specifies a recipient in the replyTo property, per Internet Message Format (RFC 2822), send the reply to the recipients in replyTo and not the recipient in the from property. When using MIME format:

  • Provide the applicable Internet message headers and the MIME content, all encoded in base64 format in the request body.

  • Add any attachments and S/MIME properties to the MIME content. This method saves the message in the Sent Items folder. Alternatively, create a draft to reply-all to a message and send it later.

šŸ’” TIP: Reply-all preserving full HTML formatting. The 'comment' field is your reply text.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bodyYes
confirmNoFor destructive operations when the confirm gate is enabled (MS365_MCP_REQUIRE_CONFIRM=true; off by default). Set to true only after the user has explicitly approved this action. When the gate is on, calls without confirm: true return { error: "confirmation_required" } without touching user data.
messageIdYesValue for the 'messageId' path segment. Pass it under the name 'messageId', not as 'id'. Use the 'id' field of the message object as returned by Microsoft Graph.
includeHeadersNoInclude response headers (including ETag) in the response metadata
excludeResponseNoExclude the full response body and only return success or failure indication
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds value by explaining that the message is saved in the Sent Items folder, the error condition when body and comment are both specified, and the RFC 2822 replyTo behavior. No contradictions with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-structured with bullet points and a tip, front-loading the main purpose. It is slightly verbose due to repeated format details, but each sentence adds value. The tip provides additional useful context without cluttering.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, nested objects, JSON/MIME choice, no output schema), the description covers key behaviors: format options, constraints, saving to Sent Items, and the draft alternative. It does not detail the response format but mentions the sent folder, which is sufficient for a send operation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

While schema description coverage is 80%, the description adds crucial semantics beyond the schema: the exclusivity constraint between comment and body in the message parameter, which is not captured in the schema. It also clarifies the JSON vs MIME usage for the body parameter.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool replies to all recipients of a message, distinguishing it from siblings like reply-mail-message (reply to sender) and create-reply-all-draft (draft version). It explicitly mentions the draft alternative and differentiates between JSON and MIME formats.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives clear context for when to use the tool (to reply-all) and mentions the alternative of creating a draft. However, it does not explicitly exclude using it when just replying to the sender, relying on the tool name. It provides good guidance on JSON vs MIME format choices and constraints.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Softeria/ms-365-mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server