ews-outlook-mcp

Agregar invitado a un evento existente

ews_add_attendee

Add a required attendee to an existing meeting and send them an invitation, leaving other guests unaffected.

Instructions

Agrega un asistente requerido a una reunión ya creada (UpdateItem) y le envía la invitación, sin tocar al resto de invitados.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "eventId": "<eventId>",
      "attendeeEmail": "<attendeeEmail>"
    },
    "name": "ews_add_attendee"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`eventId`	Yes	Id del evento, devuelto por ews_create_event o ews_list_calendar
`attendeeEmail`	Yes	Correo del nuevo invitado

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 31, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description goes beyond the annotations by disclosing that it sends an invitation to the new attendee and does not modify existing attendees, which are important side effects. It also reveals the underlying UpdateItem call, providing technical 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?

It is a single, well-structured sentence that packs all key information: the action, the API method, the side effect, and the guarantee about other attendees. No wasted words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with two simple parameters and no output schema, the description covers the action, the side effects, and the constraint on other attendees. It could optionally mention error cases or return value, but the tool's simplicity and schema descriptions make the current description sufficient.

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 already fully describes both parameters, and the description adds only the nuance that the attendee is added as 'requerido' (required). This adds minor semantic value beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline for 100% coverage without needing to compensate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool adds a required attendee to an existing meeting, specifying it uses UpdateItem and sends the invitation, while not affecting other attendees. This distinguishes it from siblings like ews_update_event or ews_create_event.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies the tool is for adding an attendee to an existing meeting, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or provide exclusions. The context is clear but lacks the explicitness of naming alternative tools, so it gets an implied-use score.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server