Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
outlook-mcp

outlook-mcp

by XenoXilus
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

outlook_get_folder_stats

Retrieve statistics for an Outlook folder, including counts of emails and other items. Optionally include data from subfolders.

Instructions

Get statistics for a specific folder

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": {
      "folderId": "<folderId>"
    },
    "name": "outlook_get_folder_stats"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
folderIdYesID of the folder to get stats for
includeSubfoldersNoInclude statistics for subfolders

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.1

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'get statistics', not explaining that it is a read-only operation, what statistics are included, or any side effects. Incomplete for agent decision-making.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

Very concise single sentence, but it sacrifices helpful detail. While front-loaded, it is borderline under-specified.

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?

No output schema and no annotations. The description does not explain return values or format, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use the results. Lack of statistics type (counts, sizes, etc.) is a major gap.

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%, so both parameters are already described in the schema. The description adds no new parameter information beyond the schema. 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?

Description clearly states verb and resource: 'Get statistics for a specific folder'. It is unambiguous and differentiates from most sibling tools, though lacking specificity on what statistics.

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 vs alternatives like outlook_list_folders. No hints on prerequisites or 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