ews-outlook-mcp

Enviar correo nuevo

ews_send_message

Compose and send a new email message to specified recipients, with optional cc, subject, and plain-text body.

Instructions

Redacta y envía un correo nuevo (no una respuesta).

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": {
      "to": "<to>",
      "subject": "<subject>",
      "body": "<body>"
    },
    "name": "ews_send_message"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`cc`	No	Correos en copia
`to`	Yes	Correos destinatarios
`body`	Yes	Cuerpo del correo, texto plano
`subject`	Yes	Asunto

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 31, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already signal a mutation (readOnlyHint=false). The description adds that it composes and sends an email, which is consistent. But it does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as immediate sending, irreversibility, or any prerequisites. It adds some value but not rich context beyond the annotations.

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?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and resource, with a parenthetical exclusion. Every word earns its place; no redundancy or filler.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The description is adequate for a simple send operation with complete schema and annotations, but it lacks explicit guidance on distinguishing from forwarding, a key sibling tool. This creates an ambiguous edge case for an AI agent deciding between ews_send_message and ews_forward_message.

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 input schema has 100% parameter coverage with descriptions for to, subject, body, and cc. The description itself adds no parameter-level semantics, so it relies on the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states the action ('Redacta y envía') and resource ('un correo nuevo'), and explicitly excludes replies ('no una respuesta'). However, it does not mention distinguishing from forwards, despite ews_forward_message being a sibling tool. This is a minor differentiation gap.

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 gives an explicit when-not-to-use hint by saying 'no una respuesta', which excludes reply tools. However, it omits the forward alternative entirely, so the guidance is partial and does not cover a likely sibling. It falls between 'implied usage' and 'clear context with exclusions'.

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

Deploy Server