Fetch recent emails from an Outlook inbox. Set a limit or choose a target mailbox to retrieve the messages you need.
Fetch recently received emails from Outlook inbox
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max emails (default: 10) | |
| mailbox | No | Target Outlook email address / mailbox. Defaults to primary configured user email if omitted. |
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. It conveys a read-only fetch operation but does not specify sorting, the meaning of 'recently', or whether both read and unread emails are included.
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 or repetition. It is efficient, though slightly too terse to carry all useful context.
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?
For a simple, read-only tool with fully documented optional parameters, the description is minimally viable: it states the inbox scope and the 'recently received' intent. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the vague recency window and lack of ordering details leave meaningful gaps.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with both limit and mailbox documented. The description itself adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 names a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('recently received emails from Outlook inbox'), and the inbox qualifier distinguishes it from sent/all-folder tools. It does not explicitly differentiate from get_unread_emails, since received and unread overlap conceptually.
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?
There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus get_recent_emails_all_folders, get_unread_emails, or search_emails. No alternatives, exclusions, or conditions are mentioned; the agent must infer context from sibling tool names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.