list_contactsList personal contacts from your Microsoft Outlook mailbox, showing display name, email addresses, and company. Fetch up to 200 contacts in a single request.
List the mailbox's personal contacts (display name, email addresses, company).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| top | No | Maximum contacts to return (capped by OUTLOOK_MAX_RESULTS) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the specific returned fields but does not disclose additional behavioral details like pagination behavior, ordering, or that results are limited by OUTLOOK_MAX_RESULTS; that constraint appears only in the schema.
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 sentence that immediately states the action and resource, with the output fields parenthetically. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundancy or filler.
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?
For a simple list operation with one optional parameter, the description plus annotations and schema are complete. The return fields are explicitly listed, and read-only/idempotent behavior is covered by annotations, so an agent has enough context to invoke the tool correctly.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the 'top' parameter is already documented in the schema with its minimum, maximum, and purpose. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema carries the full burden.
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 clearly states the action (List), the resource (the mailbox's personal contacts), and the returned fields (display name, email addresses, company). This makes it immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like list_folders, list_messages, and search_messages.
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 context is clear: this tool is for retrieving personal contacts, and no sibling tool overlaps with that responsibility. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but for a simple resource-specific list operation the usage context is sufficiently implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.