Reports indexed coverage, search scope, known PST stores, and pending folders; use it to confirm archive indexing before concluding Outlook mail is absent.
Indexed coverage, search scope, known PST stores and pending folders. Coverage describes the last sync inventory; use list_outlook_sources to verify currently connected archives before declaring mail absent.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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 genuinely new behavioral context beyond them: coverage reflects the last sync inventory and can be stale relative to live connectivity, which is exactly the trap an agent could fall into. It stops short of describing freshness timestamps or how pending folders are reported.
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 sentences, no filler, and the caveat is placed immediately after the content list where it matters. The first sentence is a bare fragment, which is compact but slightly telegraphic; a short framing word would have cost nothing.
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?
With no output schema, the description must carry the return-value burden, and it enumerates the four report components plus the staleness caveat and the verification path. It is nearly complete, though 'search scope' and 'pending folders' remain undefined enough that an agent may not know how to interpret those fields.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is no parameter semantics to get wrong. The description correctly adds no pseudo-parameter narrative.
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 names the concrete contents of the report: indexed coverage, search scope, known PST stores, and pending folders. That is specific enough for an agent to know this is an index-health/status tool rather than a search tool, though it reads as a noun list rather than an explicit verb+resource statement and doesn't distinguish itself from get_indexed_mail or sync_index.
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?
It gives explicit, actionable routing: check coverage here, but call list_outlook_sources to confirm currently connected archives before concluding mail is absent. That is a real alternative-plus-condition. It falls short of 5 because it only covers the one 'is mail missing?' branch and says nothing about when to prefer this over get_indexed_mail or sync_index.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.