Flag or unflag an Outlook email as important to mark messages that need follow-up or attention. Use it to organize priority items in Outlook through your MCP client.
Flags or unflags an Outlook email as important.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.0.416Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a mutation (changing flag state) but omits critical details such as which email is targeted, whether the operation is reversible, what permissions are needed, or what the tool returns. This is insufficient for a mutation tool with zero annotation support.
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?
The description is a single efficient sentence with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded. It avoids redundancy, though it is arguably too terse given the tool's mutation nature. The structure is clean but under-specified relative to what an agent might need.
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?
Given the lack of annotations, output schema, and parameters, the description should explain how the email is identified (e.g., selected in UI, passed implicitly) and any required context. It fails to address these points, leaving a significant gap for a tool that alters email state. The description is not complete enough for an agent to invoke it confidently without additional assumptions.
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 has zero parameters, so according to the scoring baseline, a 4 is appropriate. The description adds no parameter information because none exist, and the schema is empty. There is no gap to compensate for.
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 states a specific verb phrase ('Flags or unflags') and resource ('an Outlook email as important'), clearly conveying the tool's action. No sibling tool performs flagging, so the action is inherently distinguishable from others like outlook_move_email or outlook_read_email. However, it does not clarify how the target email is identified, leaving a small gap in purpose understanding.
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?
The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or the context in which flagging is appropriate. The single sentence merely restates the function without any usage framing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.