Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Claude-Read-Outlook-Attachments

Claude-Read-Outlook-Attachments

by Zacccck
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

List Email Attachments

list_email_attachments

List all attachments from a specific Outlook email by providing its message ID. Optionally specify a mailbox to search within. Enables programmatic retrieval of email attachments.

Instructions

List attachments for a specific Outlook email.

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": {
      "messageId": "<messageId>"
    },
    "name": "list_email_attachments"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
messageIdYes
mailboxNome

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as pagination, limits, or whether it returns metadata vs. content. The agent has no insight into side effects or safety.

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?

The description is concise (one sentence) but lacks structure. It is too minimal, omitting critical information that could be front-loaded.

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 annotations, output schema, and parameter descriptions, the single sentence is insufficient. More context about usage and return value is necessary.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain what the messageId parameter represents or the significance of the mailbox parameter (default 'me'). Elaboration on these is needed for correct usage.

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 action ('List') and resource ('attachments for a specific Outlook email'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_recent_messages (lists emails) and read_email_attachment (reads a single attachment).

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. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a messageId from list_recent_messages) or when to use read_email_attachment instead.

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