Find emails by keyword, sender, subject, or topic in Outlook mailboxes. Use targeted queries to locate specific messages quickly.
Search emails by keyword, sender, subject or topic
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes | Search query | |
| 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 does not state whether this is a read-only operation, what scope it searches (current mailbox vs all folders), whether results are limited, or what the output looks like. The word 'search' suggests non-mutation, but key behavioral context is missing.
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 words. It is concise and easy to parse, though it could have used the saved space to add a bit more operational context without becoming bloated.
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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain search scope, default mailbox behavior beyond the schema, whether all folders are included, what 'limit' means, or what a result looks like. Sibling tools like get_recent_emails_all_folders suggest scope is a relevant distinction that this description leaves unaddressed.
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 covers 67% of parameters, with mailbox already well described. The description adds useful meaning to 'query' by enumerating keyword, sender, subject, and topic, but it does not clarify the 'limit' parameter at all. It partially compensates for the generic 'Search query' schema text.
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 clearly identifies a specific operation—searching emails—and lists the search dimensions (keyword, sender, subject, topic). It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_recent_emails or get_unread_emails, so it stops short of a 5.
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 verb 'search' implies this tool is for query-based lookup rather than simple listing or folder retrieval, but the description gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over siblings like get_recent_emails_all_folders or get_sent_emails. Usage context is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.