Retrieve a selected cached email with its preceding and following messages in the same Outlook conversation, in chronological order, without live Outlook calls.
Return the selected cached mail and preceding/following mail in the same Outlook store/conversation, chronologically. No live Outlook or embedding calls.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| after | No | ||
| before | No | ||
| mail_id | Yes | ||
| max_body_chars | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.9.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds the useful behavioral fact that no live Outlook or embedding calls occur, meaning results may be stale or absent. It omits what happens when the thread is shorter than the requested window and says nothing about body truncation.
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?
Two short sentences, no filler, with the core behavior and the cached-only constraint front-loaded. Nothing in it is redundant with the schema or annotations.
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?
A four-parameter tool with zero schema descriptions and no output schema needs the description to explain the windowing (before/after) and truncation (max_body_chars) semantics, plus the return shape of the thread. It covers only the high-level idea, leaving the parameters an agent must actually set undocumented.
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 0%, so the description must carry all four parameters. 'Preceding/following' gives directional meaning to before/after, but defaults, units, bounds, and max_body_chars (body truncation length) are entirely unexplained in both schema and description.
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?
States a specific verb (return) and resource (selected cached mail plus preceding/following mail in the same store/conversation), with the chronological ordering made explicit. It is distinguishable from search_emails and get_indexed_mail by the 'cached conversation thread' framing, though it never names those siblings.
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?
'No live Outlook or embedding calls' implies this works off the local cache and is the cheap option, but the description never says when to prefer it over get_indexed_mail or search_emails, nor what to do if the mail isn't cached. Usage is only inferable, not stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.