Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
outlook-mcp-server

outlook-mcp-server

by dhtim135
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

list_attachments

Retrieve a list of attachments from a specified Outlook message, including each attachment's ID, name, content type, and size.

Instructions

List attachments on a message. Returns list of {id, name, contentType, size}.

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": {
      "message_id": "<message_id>"
    },
    "name": "list_attachments"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
message_idYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the output shape and that it lists attachments, which is adequate but lacks details on pagination, limits, or authentication needs. The description is honest but not rich in behavioral context.

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 sentence that efficiently conveys the purpose and output, with no unnecessary words. It earns its place in the documentation.

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?

For a simple listing tool, the description covers the basics but omits details like pagination behavior, what happens with no attachments, and whether the list is complete. With a sibling like download_attachment, more context on scope could help.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description does not explain the message_id parameter beyond its name. It adds no semantic meaning, such as how to obtain the id or any constraints, leaving the schema as the sole source of information.

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 action is to list attachments on a message and specifies the output format with fields id, name, contentType, size. This distinguishes it from siblings like download_attachment, which likely handles a single attachment.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like download_attachment, nor any prerequisites beyond the required message_id. There's no mention of when not to use it or context for its use.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools