outlook-evidence-mcp

by ZachPackull

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

TypeScript

Local

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clear and distinct purpose: authentication, status checking, fetching a message, listing attachments, saving a message, saving a thread, and searching. No overlapping functionality.
Naming Consistency4/5
Most tools follow a consistent 'outlook_verb_noun' pattern (e.g., get_message, save_message, search). However, outlook_auth_status is a noun-noun combination and outlook_authenticate is just a verb, causing minor inconsistency.
Tool Count5/5
With 7 tools, the set is well-scoped for the purpose of reading and saving Outlook emails as evidence. It covers authentication, retrieval, attachment handling, and search without being excessive.
Completeness5/5
The tool set covers the full evidence-gathering workflow: authenticate, search, retrieve messages, list/save attachments, and save entire threads. No obvious gaps for the stated read-only, chain-of-custody purpose.
Average 3.7/5 across 7 of 7 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 1 commit in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states 'read-only', which indicates no side effects, but fails to disclose other behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether the operation is idempotent. For a fetch tool, more context is needed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the core action and key property (read-only).
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 no output schema and no annotations, the description lacks details about return format, error handling, authentication prerequisites, and what 'full metadata' includes. For a simple tool, it is minimally adequate but leaves significant gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, meaning the parameter 'messageId' has no description in the schema. The description adds minimal context by stating it fetches a message, implying messageId identifies which message, but does not specify format, source, or how to obtain it. This leaves ambiguity.
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 verb ('fetch'), the resource ('one message'), and the scope ('full metadata + body'), and explicitly marks it as read-only. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like outlook_save_message (write) and outlook_search (search).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for fetching a single message but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like outlook_search or outlook_list_attachments. No when-not-to-use or exclusions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, placing full burden on the description. It discloses key behaviors (export as .eml, download attachments, manifest entry, return paths) but omits important details such as authentication requirements, error handling (e.g., message not found), whether the evidence folder is created automatically, and any rate limits. Significant gaps remain for a tool that persists files.
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 sentence front-loaded with the primary action. It is concise and to the point, but could be slightly restructured for clarity (e.g., splitting into two sentences). Overall, it is efficient with no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has modest complexity with two simple parameters and no output schema. The description covers main functionality and return value, but lacks details on prerequisites (authentication), error scenarios, and manifest specifics. Without annotations or output schema, more context would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It mentions downloading attachments, implying the includeAttachments boolean, but does not explicitly state that the parameter controls this behavior. The format or constraints for messageId are also not clarified. Partial information is provided but does not fully compensate for the missing schema descriptions.
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 it exports a single message as .eml, downloads attachments, records chain-of-custody manifest with SHA-256, and returns file paths. This specific verb+resource+additional actions distinguishes it from sibling tools like outlook_save_thread and outlook_get_message.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies forensic usage with chain-of-custody, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like outlook_save_thread or outlook_get_message. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, though context from sibling names helps infer differences.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool saves messages and attachments but does not mention important behavioral traits such as read-only nature, required authentication, rate limits, or error handling. The lack of output schema further limits transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that conveys the core functionality without extraneous information. It is front-loaded with the input requirement and efficiently communicates the action and outcome.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but lacks details about output format, error handling, and permission requirements. For a comprehensive agentic use, more contextual completeness would be beneficial.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description only mentions 'message id' and 'attachments' indirectly, but the input schema has two parameters with no descriptions. With 0% schema coverage, the description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the parameter names. It does not explain the default value of includeAttachments or constraints on messageId.
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 tool's purpose: saving every message in a conversation along with attachments as .eml files with manifest entries. The verb 'save' and resource 'whole thread/conversation' are specific, and it distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'outlook_save_message' which saves a single message.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when users need to save an entire email thread rather than a single message, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like outlook_save_message. No usage exclusions or context signals are provided, but the instructions are clear enough for basic selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the action is read-only (listing) and what fields are returned. No mention of authorization or error handling, but for a simple list tool this is acceptable.
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 unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource. However, it could be slightly expanded for clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description lists returned fields (name, type, size) but does not mention whether attachments have IDs or if pagination exists. For a simple list with 1 param, it is minimally adequate but could be more complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Only one parameter (messageId) with 0% schema description coverage. The tool description does not explain what messageId is or how to obtain it, leaving the agent to infer from context.
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 explicitly states the verb 'list' and the resource 'attachments of a message', and specifies the returned fields (name, type, size). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like outlook_get_message which retrieves the message itself.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when needing attachment details for a message, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives (e.g., outlook_get_message might include attachments). No when-not-to-use or comparison provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It correctly indicates a read-only status check, but doesn't mention any potential side effects, security requirements, or output format. Adequate for a simple tool but lacks depth.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single concise sentence that fully captures the tool's purpose with no extraneous information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately states its function. However, it doesn't indicate if the result is a boolean or string, or possible error states. Slightly incomplete but sufficient for a simple status check.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters exist, so schema description coverage is 100%. Description adds no new parameter info, but baseline for 0-param tools is 4. No ambiguity.
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 tool reports whether the server is signed in, using specific verb 'report' and resource 'server signed in status'. This distinguishes it from sibling tool outlook_authenticate which performs authentication.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like outlook_authenticate. The description only states the function without context on prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the device-code flow, return of URL+code, and read-only scope. However, it does not detail error handling, state changes, or whether multiple calls are safe.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys purpose, method, and scope. No extraneous words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It specifies the return of a URL+code and the read-only scope. However, it lacks details on error conditions or timeout behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has no parameters, so the description does not need to add parameter information. The schema coverage is 100% (no params), and the description appropriately omits param details.
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 tool initiates a one-time device-code sign-in, returns a URL and code, and specifies the read-only scope. It is specific and distinct from sibling tools like outlook_auth_status.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly says 'Begin the one-time device-code sign-in,' indicating when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide alternatives beyond implied differentiation from siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses return format (message summaries with id, subject, from, date) and implies authentication by mentioning 'signed-in mailbox'. No contradictions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences: first covers purpose and parameter usage, second covers return format. No waste, front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Adequately explains the tool for a search function with 6 parameters. Could mention pagination via 'top', but overall complete given no output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds significant meaning beyond the schema: explains query as free-text KQL with examples, and clarifies structured filters. This compensates for the schema description coverage of 50%.
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 (search) and resource (signed-in mailbox). It distinguishes from siblings like outlook_get_message by focusing on search rather than retrieval of a specific message.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides explicit guidance on using query for free-text KQL or structured filters (from, since, until, folder). While it does not explicitly exclude alternatives, the context makes it clear this is the search tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![outlook-evidence-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/ZachPackull/outlook-evidence-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/ZachPackull/outlook-evidence-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![outlook-evidence-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/ZachPackull/outlook-evidence-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/ZachPackull/outlook-evidence-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/ZachPackull/outlook-evidence-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server