Retrieve sent emails from Outlook to monitor outbox activity and identify conversations that need follow-up.
Fetch sent emails to track outbox and detect missing replies
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, but it only restates the operation ('Fetch sent emails') and gives a purpose. It does not disclose ordering, default limit behavior, how mailbox selection affects results, or the shape of the returned data.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The verb-resource pair appears first and the purpose clause earns its place by clarifying intent.
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?
The tool is simple and callable with zero required parameters, so the description is minimally viable. Yet without an output schema or annotations, it should also clarify return behavior or at least distinguish itself from sibling email-fetching tools.
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 only 50% and the description adds nothing about the parameters. An agent cannot tell from the description what 'limit' means or how it interacts with the optional 'mailbox' parameter.
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 uses a specific verb ('Fetch'), a clear resource ('sent emails'), and an actionable purpose ('track outbox and detect missing replies'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_unread_emails or get_recent_emails.
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 phrase 'to track outbox and detect missing replies' provides clear context for when this tool is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as when to prefer search_emails or get_recent_emails_all_folders.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.