Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
outlook-evidence-mcp

outlook-evidence-mcp

by ZachPackull
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Authenticate to Outlook

outlook_authenticate

Initiate device-code authentication to obtain a URL and code for browser sign-in. Grants read-only access to Outlook emails.

Instructions

Begin the one-time device-code sign-in. Returns a URL + code to complete in a browser. Read-only (Mail.Read).

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "outlook_authenticate"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
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.

Deploy Server

Other Tools