Retrieve one Outlook message by ID, returning subject, sender, date, and truncated body. Use it to review school email content without marking messages as read.
Read one Outlook message (subject, from, date, truncated body).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| max_body | No | ||
| message_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral load. It usefully discloses that the body is truncated, which is a real behavioral trait, but says nothing about auth requirements, error behavior for a missing message_id, or whether truncation is fixed or configurable. Partial coverage only.
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 with the resource and scope front-loaded and a compact parenthetical for the return fields. No filler or restated boilerplate.
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 the return shape need not be restated, and that partially offsets the thin description. However, for a read tool with zero annotations and zero parameter documentation, more context about the message_id source and truncation control was warranted.
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% and the description never references either parameter. message_id (required) and max_body are left entirely unexplained, and the description does not even connect max_body to the body truncation it mentions. With two undocumented parameters it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
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 (Read) and resource (one Outlook message) and even enumerates the fields returned (subject, from, date, truncated body). It does not, however, differentiate itself from nearby siblings such as outlook_search or schoolmail_read, so the agent must infer the split from the name alone.
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 gives no indication of when to use this versus outlook_search (finding a message) or schoolmail_read (a different mail system). There is no mention of prerequisites, ordering, or the alternative paths an agent might take.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.