Skip to main content
Glama

reply-mail-message

Destructive

Send replies to Microsoft 365 email messages using JSON or MIME format, preserving HTML formatting and attachments while automatically handling reply-to recipients.

Instructions

Reply to the sender of a message using either JSON or MIME format. When using JSON format:

  • Specify either a comment or the body property of the message parameter. Specifying both will return an HTTP 400 Bad Request error.

  • If the original message specifies a recipient in the replyTo property, per Internet Message Format (RFC 2822), send the reply to the recipients in replyTo and not the recipient in the from property. When using MIME format:

  • Provide the applicable Internet message headers and the MIME content, all encoded in base64 format in the request body.

  • Add any attachments and S/MIME properties to the MIME content. This method saves the message in the Sent Items folder. Alternatively, create a draft to reply to an existing message and send it later.

šŸ’” TIP: Reply to an email preserving full HTML formatting. The 'comment' field is your reply text. Do NOT reconstruct the email manually.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bodyYes
messageIdYesPath parameter: messageId
includeHeadersNoInclude response headers (including ETag) in the response metadata
excludeResponseNoExclude the full response body and only return success or failure indication
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Adds valuable behavioral details beyond annotations: confirms message is saved to 'Sent Items' (immediate send), explains RFC 2822 replyTo handling logic, warns of HTTP 400 errors for invalid input, and clarifies attachment handling differs by format. No contradictions with destructiveHint=true.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Contains necessary information but suffers from inconsistent formatting (mixing asterisks and dashes for bullets) and includes emoji. The structure separates format instructions clearly but could be more compact.

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 complex dual-format messaging tool with nested objects and no output schema, the description covers format selection, error conditions, replyTo behavior, draft alternatives, and Sent Items persistence. Missing explicit description of the 'messageId' parameter requirement in text.

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?

With 75% schema coverage, the description adds crucial semantic context: explains 'comment' field purpose, mutual exclusivity with 'body' property, and MIME encoding requirements. The tip clarifies intended use of the comment field for HTML preservation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States specific action 'Reply to the sender' with format options (JSON/MIME). Implicitly distinguishes from 'reply-all' by specifying 'sender,' but could be more explicit about differences from siblings like 'reply-all-mail-message' and 'create-reply-draft'.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on choosing between JSON and MIME formats with constraint details (comment vs body mutual exclusivity, base64 encoding). Mentions 'Alternatively, create a draft...' which guides users toward the draft creation sibling tool when immediate sending isn't desired.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/alfredo-ia/ms-365-mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server