Outlook Meetings Scheduler MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have distinct purposes, but there is some overlap between create-event and create-event-with-attendees, which could cause confusion about when to use each. The other tools are clearly differentiated by their specific actions on calendar events or person lookup.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb-noun pattern using snake_case, such as create-event, delete-event, and update-event-attendees. This predictability makes it easy for agents to understand and select the appropriate tool.
Tool Count5/5
With 8 tools, the server is well-scoped for scheduling meetings in Outlook, covering essential CRUD operations for events, attendee management, and person lookup. Each tool serves a clear purpose without being overwhelming.
Completeness5/5
The tool set provides complete coverage for the domain, including create, read, update, and delete for events, plus specific tools for managing attendees and finding people. There are no obvious gaps that would hinder agent workflows in scheduling meetings.
Average 2.9/5 across 8 of 8 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under ISC License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Create' which implies a write/mutation operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether the event is saved immediately, error handling, or rate limits. The description adds minimal value beyond the basic action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given this is a mutation tool (create operation) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens after creation, error conditions, or return values. For a tool that modifies data, more behavioral context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 5 parameters thoroughly with descriptions and defaults. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond what's in the schema, meeting the baseline of 3 when schema coverage is high.
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?
The description clearly states the verb ('Create') and resource ('calendar event') with the specific API ('Microsoft Graph API'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'update-event' or 'delete-event' by specifying creation, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'create-event-with-attendees' which suggests a more specialized version.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to choose 'create-event-with-attendees' for events with attendees, or when to use 'update-event' for modifications. No prerequisites or context for usage are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states it creates an event with attendees via Microsoft Graph API, implying a write operation, but doesn't disclose permissions needed, rate limits, whether it sends invitations, or what happens on failure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, front-loaded with the core action, zero waste. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain return values, error handling, or behavioral details like whether attendees receive invitations. Given the complexity and lack of structured data, more context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all 7 parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining attendee invitation behavior or event creation constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does all the work.
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?
The description clearly states the action ('Create') and resource ('calendar event with attendees'), specifying it uses Microsoft Graph API. It distinguishes from 'create-event' by explicitly mentioning attendees, but doesn't fully differentiate from 'update-event-attendees' which also handles attendees.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create-event' (without attendees) or 'update-event-attendees'. The description mentions attendees but doesn't provide explicit usage context or exclusions relative to sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does 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. While 'delete' implies a destructive mutation, the description doesn't specify whether this action is reversible, requires specific permissions, has side effects (e.g., on attendees), or what happens on success/failure. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence ('Delete a calendar event') with zero wasted words. It is front-loaded and efficiently communicates the core action without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a destructive operation, lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address critical aspects like error handling, return values, or behavioral nuances (e.g., confirmation prompts). For a tool that permanently removes data, more context is needed to ensure safe and correct usage by an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'eventId' parameter clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., format examples, source of the ID, or validation rules). According to the rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3, which applies here as the description doesn't compensate with extra param details.
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?
The description 'Delete a calendar event' clearly states the action (delete) and resource (calendar event), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create-event' or 'update-event' by specifying deletion. However, it doesn't explicitly mention what distinguishes it from other destructive operations or provide additional context about the scope of deletion.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an event ID from 'get-event' or 'list-events'), when not to use it (e.g., for soft deletion), or how it compares to siblings like 'update-event' for modifying instead of deleting. This leaves the agent without context for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does 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. The description only states what the tool does ('Find a person's email address'), but doesn't disclose important behavioral aspects like what happens when multiple matches are found, whether it's case-sensitive, what format the email address is returned in, or any error conditions. For a lookup tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise - a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. There's no wasted words or unnecessary elaboration. It's front-loaded with the essential information and doesn't include any extraneous details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that there are no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for effective tool usage. While it states what the tool does, it doesn't provide enough context about the behavior, return format, or error handling. For a lookup tool that presumably returns email addresses, the description should ideally specify what format the result comes in or what happens when no match is found.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'name' clearly documented as 'Name or partial name of the person to find'. The description adds minimal value beyond what's already in the schema - it mentions 'by their name' which is redundant with the parameter documentation. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Find a person's email address by their name'. It specifies both the action ('Find') and the resource ('person's email address'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from any potential sibling tools that might also involve finding people or email addresses, which prevents a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, limitations, or suggest other tools for related tasks. While the sibling tools are all event-related (create, delete, get, list, update events), there's no explicit comparison or context provided for when to choose this person-finding tool over other methods.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what details are returned (e.g., title, time, attendees), which is inadequate for a read operation with no output schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose without waste. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what details are returned (e.g., event properties), potential errors, or usage context, leaving gaps for the agent to infer behavior in a server with multiple event-related tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the 'eventId' parameter. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying retrieval by ID, which aligns with the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation.
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?
The description clearly states the action ('Get details') and resource ('calendar event'), specifying it retrieves by ID. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list-events' or 'find-person' that might also retrieve event information, so it lacks sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention using 'list-events' for multiple events or 'find-person' for person-related queries, leaving the agent without context for selection among siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does 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. While 'List' implies a read operation, it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, how results are ordered, if pagination is supported, what happens with large result sets, or the format of returned data. For a list tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple list tool and front-loads the core functionality.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what the output looks like (e.g., list format, included fields), doesn't address authentication requirements, and provides minimal guidance on usage. For a list tool in a calendar context with multiple sibling tools, more context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description mentions 'optional filtering' which aligns with the parameters in the schema, but adds no specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides. With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description doesn't enhance understanding of parameter interactions, default behaviors, or filtering logic.
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?
The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('calendar events'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'get-event' or 'find-person' which might also retrieve event-related information, so it doesn't achieve the highest score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions 'optional filtering' which implies some context for usage, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get-event' (for single events) or 'find-person' (which might find events indirectly). There's no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or typical use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'update' implies mutation, it doesn't specify whether this requires specific permissions, whether changes are reversible, what happens to fields not mentioned in the update (partial vs. full replacement), or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that states the core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like permissions, side effects, or response format. While the schema covers parameters well, the description fails to provide the contextual information needed for safe and effective use of this update operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 8 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. According to guidelines, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even with no parameter info in the description.
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?
The description clearly states the verb ('update') and resource ('existing calendar event'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its sibling 'update-event-attendees' which also updates events but focuses specifically on attendees.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update-event-attendees' (for attendee-only updates) or 'create-event' (for new events). There's no mention of prerequisites, such as needing an existing event ID, or when partial versus full updates are appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Add or remove attendees' implies mutation, it doesn't specify permission requirements, whether changes are reversible, how conflicts are handled, or what happens to event notifications. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that communicates the core functionality without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for the tool's scope and gets straight to the point with clear subject-verb-object structure.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't address permission requirements, error conditions, response format, or how this tool differs from sibling update tools. Given the complexity of modifying calendar events and the lack of structured safety information, more contextual guidance is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents all three parameters. The description mentions 'attendees' which aligns with the parameters but adds no additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.
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?
The description clearly states the action ('Add or remove attendees') and resource ('from a calendar event'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'update-event' which might also handle attendee updates, leaving some ambiguity about specialization.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update-event' or 'create-event-with-attendees'. There's no mention of prerequisites, permissions needed, or scenarios where this specific attendee-focused update is preferred over broader event updates.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

outlook-meetings-scheduler-mcp-server MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

[![outlook-meetings-scheduler-mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/anoopt/outlook-meetings-scheduler-mcp-server/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/anoopt/outlook-meetings-scheduler-mcp-server)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![outlook-meetings-scheduler-mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/anoopt/outlook-meetings-scheduler-mcp-server/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/anoopt/outlook-meetings-scheduler-mcp-server)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

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/anoopt/outlook-meetings-scheduler-mcp-server'

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