Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
outlook-mcp

outlook-mcp

by XenoXilus
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

outlook_build_recurrence_pattern

Construct a recurrence pattern object for Outlook calendar events by specifying pattern type, interval, days, date, range, and occurrences.

Instructions

Build a recurrence pattern object

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": {
      "patternType": "<patternType>",
      "rangeType": "<rangeType>"
    },
    "name": "outlook_build_recurrence_pattern"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
patternTypeYesType of recurrence pattern
intervalNoInterval between occurrences
daysOfWeekNoDays of the week for the pattern
dayOfMonthNoDay of the month
monthOfYearNoMonth of the year
indexNoIndex for relative patterns (e.g., "first")
rangeTypeYesType of recurrence range
numberOfOccurrencesNoNumber of occurrences
rangeStartDateNoStart date of the range
rangeEndDateNoEnd date of the range

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.1

TDQS

C2.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It only states it builds a pattern object, but does not disclose side effects, permissions, or whether it returns the object for later use.

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?

Single sentence, no redundancy. Efficient but could be more informative without losing conciseness.

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?

With 10 parameters and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain how parameters combine to form the recurrence object or what the output looks like.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% with parameter descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, but does not contradict it either.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description 'Build a recurrence pattern object' specifies the action and resource but is vague. Among siblings like 'outlook_create_recurrence_helper' and 'outlook_create_recurring_event', it doesn't differentiate itself.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'outlook_create_recurrence_helper'. No context on prerequisites or preferred scenarios.

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