List recent emails from your Outlook inbox or other folders, returning sender, subject, time, and read status without message bodies. Filter by folder, limit, or unread-only.
列出收件箱（或指定文件夹）中的最近邮件，只返回元数据（发件人、主题、时间、是否已读），不含正文。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | 返回条数，1-50，默认 20 | |
| folder | No | 邮件文件夹，默认 inbox。也可用 archive、drafts、sentitems 等 | |
| unreadOnly | No | 只返回未读邮件，默认 false |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds the key behavioral trait of returning metadata only (no body), which is not evident from the name alone. It doesn't mention sorting or pagination, but with annotations covering safety, the added value is solid.
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?
A single, focused sentence that leads with the primary action and resource, then clarifies the return scope. No wasted words and the metadata-only constraint is front-loaded.
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?
Since there is no output schema, the description adequately covers the return format (metadata fields). It does not specify ordering or pagination behavior, but for a list tool with an optional limit, this is acceptable. Combined with the annotations, the agent has enough to call it correctly.
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 100%, so all three parameters (limit, folder, unreadOnly) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional syntax or format details, matching the baseline of 3 when the schema carries the parameter burden.
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 states the verb (list), resource (emails), scope (inbox or specified folder), and explicitly notes it returns only metadata (sender, subject, time, read status), not body. This differentiates it from get_email (full email) and search_emails (search).
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 implies usage: use this for listing recent metadata, use get_email for full content, use search_emails for complex queries. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, so it's clear context but lacks explicit exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.