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

outlook-mcp-server

by dhtim135
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

read_email

Retrieve full content and headers of a specific email message by its message ID. Returns subject, sender, recipient, timestamp, body, and attachment flag.

Instructions

Read full body + headers of one message.

Returns {id, subject, from, to, received, body, body_type, hasAttachments}.

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": "read_email"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
message_idYes

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?

The description lists return fields but does not disclose side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or error conditions. Since annotations are absent, the tool's read-only nature is implied but not explicit.

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?

Two concise sentences: one for purpose, one for output structure. No wasted words, front-loaded with core action.

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 read tool, the description covers basic functionality and output. Missing details like usage prerequisites, error handling, or operational context (e.g., whether reading marks as read). Adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

The only parameter 'message_id' lacks description beyond its type. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate by explaining where to obtain the ID or its format, which it does not.

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 ('Read full body + headers') and the resource ('one message'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like search_emails and move_email by specifying it is for a single message's full content.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., using search_emails to find an ID) or when not to use it (e.g., for multiple messages).

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