Retrieve a complete email conversation thread by providing its Outlook Conversation ID, with optional limits and mailbox targeting for precise results.
Retrieve full email conversation history by conversation ID
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| mailbox | No | Target Outlook email address / mailbox. Defaults to primary configured user email if omitted. | |
| conversationId | Yes | Outlook Conversation ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.2.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Retrieve' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not clarify whether messages are marked read, how the optional limit affects the 'full' claim, what response shape is returned, or whether mailbox access permissions are required.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It communicates the primary action and scope immediately and every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description is too thin for reliable invocation: it omits how limit behaves, what the returned conversation history contains, and when to choose this tool over sibling email search/retrieval tools. The word 'full' also sits awkwardly with the optional limit parameter.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already documents conversationId and mailbox, so the description adds little beyond restating that retrieval is by conversation ID. The limit parameter has no schema description and the tool description does nothing to explain its meaning or default behavior.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('Retrieve'), a specific resource ('full email conversation history'), and the required identifier ('by conversation ID'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_emails or get_recent_emails, which target individual emails or folder scans rather than a conversation thread.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the appropriate use case: when an agent has an Outlook Conversation ID and wants the full thread history. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over sibling tools such as search_emails, nor does it mention exclusions such as needing a mailbox or limits on large threads.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.