Skip to main content
Glama

reply-mail-message

reply-mail-message
Destructive

Reply to email messages by specifying a comment or providing the full message body in JSON or MIME format. Preserves original HTML formatting and automatically addresses the reply to the appropriate recipients.

Instructions

Reply to the sender 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 to an existing message and send it later.

šŸ’” TIP: Reply to an email preserving full HTML formatting. The 'comment' field is your reply text. Do NOT reconstruct the email manually.

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, so the description adds value by noting that the message is saved in the Sent Items folder and by describing the 400 error case. This goes beyond annotations without contradictions, earning a 4.

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 reasonably concise given the complexity, with clear bullet points and a front-loaded purpose. It could be slightly shorter, but it effectively organizes information without excessive verbosity.

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, two formats), the description covers key aspects: format choice, parameter constraints, and the sent items folder. The lack of output schema details is acceptable as the description focuses on inputs. The tip addresses a common use case. Score 4.

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?

With 80% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining the JSON vs MIME choice, the constraint on specifying both comment and body, and the tip about using the comment field. This extra context raises the score to 4.

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 the sender of a message, distinguishes between JSON and MIME formats, and includes a tip emphasizing preserving HTML formatting and using the comment field. This specificity and sibling differentiation (e.g., reply-all) justify a score of 5.

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 provides guidance on when to use JSON vs MIME, constraints on parameters (comment vs body), and the behavior regarding reply-to recipients. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like reply-all-mail-message or forward-mail-message, leaving some ambiguity. Still, the guidance is detailed and actionable.

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