Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
outlook-mcp

outlook-mcp

by XenoXilus
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

outlook_batch_process_emails

Batch process multiple Outlook emails by marking as read/unread, deleting, moving, flagging, or categorizing in one operation.

Instructions

Perform bulk operations on multiple emails

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "messageIds": "<messageIds>",
      "operation": "<operation>"
    },
    "name": "outlook_batch_process_emails"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
messageIdsYesArray of email IDs to process
operationYesThe operation to perform on all emails
operationDataNoAdditional data for the operation (e.g., destinationFolderId for move)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.1

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

The description lacks any behavioral details beyond being a bulk operation. It does not disclose error handling (e.g., partial failures), rate limits, or whether operations are atomic. With no annotations, this is a significant gap for a potentially destructive tool.

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 a single, concise sentence with no extraneous information. It is well-structured but arguably too brief, sacrificing context for brevity.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return value, error behavior, or limitations (e.g., maximum number of emails). More details are needed for a safe and effective tool.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The input schema provides complete descriptions for all three parameters, including nested properties for operationData. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, but the schema itself is clear, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description 'Perform bulk operations on multiple emails' clearly indicates this tool is for batch processing, distinguishing it from sibling tools that handle single emails. However, it does not explicitly list the supported operations, though the schema provides an enum.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this batch tool versus individual tools like delete_email or mark_as_read. There is no mention of trade-offs, such as efficiency or atomicity, leaving the agent to infer usage from context.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools