Microsoft MCP

by elyxlz

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Python

Remote

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have distinct purposes targeting specific Microsoft 365 resources (contacts, emails, events, files) with clear action verbs, though some overlap exists between search_* tools and unified_search which could cause confusion about when to use which search method. The authentication tools (authenticate_account and complete_authentication) are clearly sequential rather than overlapping.
Naming Consistency5/5
Excellent consistency with a clear verb_noun pattern throughout all 35 tools (e.g., create_contact, delete_email, get_event, list_files, update_file). All tools use snake_case exclusively with no deviations in naming convention, making the tool set highly predictable and readable.
Tool Count3/5
35 tools is borderline heavy for a Microsoft 365 integration, though it covers multiple domains (authentication, contacts, email, calendar, OneDrive). The count feels somewhat excessive with separate search tools for each resource type plus a unified search, creating potential redundancy that could be streamlined.
Completeness5/5
Excellent coverage of Microsoft 365 domains with complete CRUD operations for contacts, emails, events, and files, plus comprehensive search capabilities and authentication workflow. The tool set provides full lifecycle management with no obvious gaps - agents can create, read, update, delete, list, and search across all supported resource types.
Average 2.7/5 across 35 of 35 tools scored. Lowest: 1.5/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- 0 of 4 community issues answered or closed in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.
If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.
MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but fails completely. It doesn't indicate whether this is a read-only or destructive operation, what permissions are required, whether changes are reversible, what happens on success/failure, or any rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this lack of behavioral information is critically inadequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (3 words) but this brevity comes at the cost of being under-specified rather than efficient. While it's front-loaded with the core action, it lacks the necessary detail that would make it genuinely helpful. The structure is minimal but not effectively informative.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool does beyond the name, provides no behavioral context, offers no parameter guidance, and gives no indication of what to expect from the operation. This leaves the agent with insufficient information to use the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage and 3 parameters (account_id, contact_id, updates), the description provides zero information about any parameters. It doesn't explain what 'updates' should contain, what format the IDs require, or how these parameters interact. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Update contact information' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'update_contact'. While it identifies the resource ('contact information'), it lacks specificity about what aspects can be updated or how this differs from sibling tools like 'create_contact' or 'delete_contact'. The description doesn't provide a clear, distinct purpose beyond the obvious.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing contact), when not to use it (e.g., for creating new contacts), or how it relates to sibling tools like 'create_contact', 'delete_contact', or 'get_contact'. There's complete absence of contextual usage information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'List contacts' reveals nothing about whether this is a read-only operation, requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or what format the output takes. For a tool with parameters and no output schema, this is completely inadequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at two words, which could be appropriate if it were informative. However, this brevity results in under-specification rather than efficient communication. It's front-loaded but lacks substance, making it more of a placeholder than a helpful description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 2 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema, and multiple sibling alternatives, the description is completely inadequate. It fails to explain what the tool does beyond the name, provides no usage context, and offers no parameter guidance. This leaves the agent with insufficient information to use the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning parameters 'account_id' and 'limit' are undocumented in the schema. The description adds no information about what these parameters mean, their expected formats, or how they affect the listing. With 2 parameters and no compensation in the description, this leaves the agent guessing about required inputs.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List contacts' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding specificity. It doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'search_contacts' or 'get_contact', nor does it specify what kind of listing (e.g., all contacts, filtered by account, paginated). This provides minimal value beyond the name itself.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'search_contacts' and 'get_contact' available, there's no indication of whether this tool is for bulk listing, filtered searches, or basic retrieval. The agent receives no context about appropriate use cases or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Delete a contact' implies a destructive mutation, but it fails to specify whether deletion is permanent or reversible, what permissions are required, if there are side effects (e.g., cascading deletions), or what the response looks like. This is inadequate for a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage.
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 extremely concise at three words, with no wasted language. It is front-loaded and to the point, though this brevity contributes to its inadequacy in other dimensions. Every word earns its place by stating the core action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's destructive nature, lack of annotations, no output schema, and schema with 0% description coverage, the description is severely incomplete. It does not address critical aspects like safety, permissions, return values, or parameter meanings, making it inadequate for safe and effective use by an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, with two required parameters (account_id and contact_id) documented only by titles. The description adds no information about these parameters—it does not explain what an account_id or contact_id is, their format, how to obtain them, or their relationship. This fails to compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Delete a contact' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without adding specificity. It does not clarify what constitutes a 'contact' in this context or distinguish this tool from sibling deletion tools like delete_email, delete_event, or delete_file. While the verb 'delete' is clear, the resource 'contact' lacks contextual definition.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing contact), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like update_contact or search_contacts. There is no indication of when deletion is appropriate versus modification or retrieval.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Update event properties' implies a mutation operation but reveals nothing about required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, error conditions, or what the response contains. For a 3-parameter mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a critical gap that leaves the agent guessing about important behavioral traits.
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 maximally concise at three words with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource. While severely under-specified, it achieves perfect conciseness for what it does communicate.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given a mutation tool with 3 parameters (including a nested object), 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It provides only the most basic purpose statement without addressing parameter meanings, behavioral expectations, usage context, or return values. The agent would struggle to use this tool correctly without additional documentation or trial-and-error.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the three parameters (account_id, event_id, updates) have descriptions in the schema. The description 'Update event properties' adds no meaningful information about these parameters beyond what's implied by their names. It doesn't explain what 'updates' object should contain, what formats are expected for IDs, or any constraints. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Update event properties' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'update_event'. While it indicates a mutation operation on events, it lacks specificity about what kind of properties can be updated or the scope of the operation. It doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'update_contact', 'update_email', or 'update_file' beyond the resource type.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing event), when not to use it, or how it differs from related tools like 'create_event', 'delete_event', 'get_event', or 'respond_event'. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name and context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get contact details' implies a read-only operation but doesn't specify whether authentication is required, what format the details are returned in, whether there are rate limits, or what happens if the contact doesn't exist. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is completely inadequate behavioral information.
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 extremely concise at just three words. While this results in under-specification, it's not verbose or poorly structured. Every word serves a purpose, and there's no unnecessary repetition or fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage for its 2 required parameters, the description 'Get contact details' is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how to use it properly, or provide any context beyond the most basic purpose. For a tool in this context, much more information is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description provides no information about parameters. With 0% schema description coverage and 2 required parameters (account_id and contact_id), the description doesn't explain what these IDs represent, their format, or how they're used. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of parameter documentation in the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get contact details' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'get_contact'. While it indicates the tool retrieves contact information, it doesn't specify what kind of details are retrieved or distinguish this from sibling tools like 'list_contacts' or 'search_contacts'. The purpose is vague rather than specific.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple sibling tools for accessing contact information (list_contacts, search_contacts, update_contact), but the description doesn't indicate this is for retrieving a specific contact by ID versus listing all contacts or searching with filters. No context or prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'modern search API' but doesn't explain what that entails—whether it supports full-text search, filters, sorting, pagination, rate limits, or authentication requirements. For a search tool with 5 parameters, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a basic tool description, though it could be more informative without sacrificing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a search tool with 5 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain return values, error conditions, or how parameters interact, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use the tool effectively.
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%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It mentions 'search' but doesn't clarify what 'query' searches (e.g., titles, descriptions, attendees), how date ranges work with 'days_ahead' and 'days_back', or what 'account_id' refers to. The description adds minimal value beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool searches calendar events using a modern search API, which provides a clear verb ('search') and resource ('calendar events'). However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_events' or 'unified_search', leaving ambiguity about when to use this specific search tool versus alternatives.
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 'list_events' or 'unified_search'. The description mentions 'modern search API' but doesn't explain what makes it modern or when it's preferable, offering no explicit when/when-not instructions or alternative recommendations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Create a calendar event' implies a write/mutation operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether it sends invitations, error conditions, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. It mentions nothing about the calendar system or event lifecycle.
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 extremely concise ('Create a calendar event')—just three words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource. There's no wasted text, though this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (8 parameters, mutation tool), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't provide enough context for an agent to understand how to use the tool effectively, what to expect, or handle edge cases. It's minimal for a tool with this parameter count and mutation nature.
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%, so the description must compensate but adds no parameter information. It doesn't explain what 'account_id', 'attendees', 'body', etc., mean, their formats, or relationships. With 8 parameters (4 required), this leaves significant gaps in understanding how to invoke the tool correctly.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create a calendar event' clearly states the action (create) and resource (calendar event), but it's somewhat vague about what constitutes a calendar event versus other event types. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_contact' or 'create_email_draft' by specifying the resource type, but doesn't clarify how it differs from 'create_event' if there were multiple event types.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (like authentication), when to use it instead of 'update_event' or 'respond_event', or any constraints. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Delete an email' implies a destructive, irreversible operation, but doesn't specify whether this is permanent deletion, moves to trash, requires specific permissions, or has confirmation steps. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this minimal description leaves critical behavioral questions unanswered.
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 maximally concise at three words, with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource. While it's under-specified, this isn't a conciseness issue - every word earns its place by conveying essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive operation with 2 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't address critical context like: what happens after deletion, error conditions, permission requirements, or relationship to other email operations. The minimal description leaves too many unknowns for safe and effective use.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage for both parameters, the description provides no information about what 'account_id' and 'email_id' represent, their format, or how to obtain them. The description mentions 'an email' but doesn't clarify the relationship between the two required parameters. For a tool with 2 undocumented parameters, the description fails to compensate for the schema coverage gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Delete an email' clearly states the action (delete) and resource (email), which is better than a tautology. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_contact' or 'delete_event' - it only specifies the resource type without clarifying scope or constraints. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity about what kind of email deletion this performs.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple email-related tools (get_email, move_email, update_email, search_emails) but no indication of when deletion is appropriate versus modification or retrieval. No prerequisites, constraints, or alternative suggestions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get full event details' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, has rate limits, returns structured data, or handles errors. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral traits unaddressed.
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 extremely concise with just three words, front-loading the core action and resource. There's no wasted language, making it easy to parse quickly, though this brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions like guidelines and transparency.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of retrieving event details with two required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return format, error handling, or dependencies, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use the tool effectively beyond basic parameter passing.
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%, meaning the input schema provides no descriptions for the two parameters (account_id and event_id). The description adds no meaning beyond what the schema's titles imply, failing to explain what these IDs represent, how to obtain them, or their format, which is insufficient given the low coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get full event details' states the verb ('Get') and resource ('event details'), which clarifies the tool's basic purpose. However, it's vague about what constitutes 'full details' and doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like 'list_events' or 'search_events', which also retrieve event information but with different scopes or filters.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_events' or 'search_events'. It lacks explicit instructions on prerequisites (e.g., needing an account_id and event_id) or context for when this retrieval is appropriate, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name and parameters alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions using a 'modern search API' but doesn't explain what this entails—such as search capabilities, performance characteristics, authentication needs, rate limits, or return format. This leaves significant gaps for a search operation.
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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (search operation with 4 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address key aspects like search behavior, result format, or error handling, leaving the agent with insufficient context.
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%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It adds no meaning beyond the schema, failing to clarify what 'account_id', 'folder', 'limit', or 'query' entail, such as query syntax or folder options.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool searches emails using a modern search API, which provides a basic verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't specify what makes it 'modern' or how it differs from sibling tools like 'list_emails' or 'unified_search', leaving the purpose somewhat vague.
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 'list_emails' or 'unified_search'. The description merely states what the tool does without indicating appropriate contexts or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool sends emails 'immediately' (implying synchronous, non-draft behavior) and mentions attachments via file paths, but lacks critical details: authentication requirements, error handling, rate limits, whether it's idempotent, or what happens on failure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action. It wastes no words, though it could be more structured by explicitly listing key parameters or constraints. Every word earns its place, but it's slightly under-specified rather than concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (a 6-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks essential context: authentication needs, error handling, return values, and detailed parameter guidance. For a tool that sends emails—a critical operation with potential side effects—this is insufficient.
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%, so the description must compensate. It only mentions 'file path(s) as attachments', which partially explains the 'attachments' parameter. It ignores the other 5 parameters (account_id, to, subject, body, cc), leaving their purpose and format undocumented. The description adds minimal value beyond the bare schema.
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 ('send an email immediately') and specifies the resource (email) with a key feature (attachments). It distinguishes from siblings like create_email_draft (which creates drafts) and reply_to_email (which replies to existing emails), but doesn't explicitly mention how it differs from all email-related tools.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_email_draft (for drafts) or reply_to_email (for replies). It mentions 'immediately' which implies urgency but doesn't specify prerequisites like authentication or account setup, nor does it indicate when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but lacks behavioral details. It implies a mutation (updating file content), but doesn't disclose permissions needed, whether it overwrites or merges content, error handling, or side effects. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and resource. There is no wasted text or redundancy, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with 3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, parameters, usage context, and expected outcomes, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to operate effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no parameter information beyond what's inferred from names. It doesn't explain what 'account_id', 'file_id', or 'local_file_path' mean, their formats, or constraints. For 3 undocumented parameters, this fails to compensate for the schema gap.
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 ('Update') and resource ('OneDrive file content'), specifying it updates from a local file. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_file' (new) and 'delete_file' (remove), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other update tools like 'update_contact' or 'update_event' beyond the resource type.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication), compare to similar tools like 'update_contact', or indicate scenarios where it's appropriate versus not. The description only states what it does, not when to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Check calendar availability' implies a read operation, but doesn't specify what format the availability information is returned in, whether it respects privacy settings, if it requires specific permissions, or how it handles time zones. The description lacks details about the tool's behavior beyond the basic purpose.
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 extremely concise at just 5 words, front-loading the core purpose without any unnecessary elaboration. Every word earns its place, making it easy to parse while conveying the essential function. The structure is optimal for such a straightforward tool purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 4 parameters (3 required), 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how to interpret results, what the parameters mean, or any behavioral constraints. The description provides only basic purpose without the necessary context for effective use.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage for all 4 parameters, the description provides no information about what 'account_id', 'attendees', 'start', or 'end' represent. The description doesn't explain that 'account_id' identifies whose calendar to check, that 'attendees' can be individuals or groups to include in availability calculations, or that 'start' and 'end' define the time range to check. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.
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 verb ('check') and resource ('calendar availability for scheduling'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't specifically differentiate from siblings like 'list_events' or 'search_events' which might also involve calendar data, but the focus on 'availability for scheduling' provides reasonable distinction.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'list_events', 'search_events', and 'respond_event' that also interact with calendar data, there's no indication whether this tool is for finding free slots, checking busy times, or other availability-related functions. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Create a new contact' implies a write operation but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this requires specific permissions, what happens on duplicate contacts, if the operation is idempotent, or what the response contains. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap 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 maximally concise at three words, front-loading the core action. There's zero waste or redundancy. While it may be under-specified, it's structurally efficient with every word carrying essential meaning.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with 5 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what data is needed, what the operation does beyond the basic verb, what permissions are required, or what to expect in return. The context demands more guidance than provided.
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%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. 'Create a new contact' adds no meaning beyond the tool name - it doesn't explain what parameters are needed, their purposes, or relationships. With 5 parameters (2 required), the description fails to provide any semantic context about account_id, email_addresses, given_name, phone_numbers, or surname.
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 'Create a new contact' clearly states the verb ('create') and resource ('contact'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'update_contact' or 'delete_contact' by specifying creation rather than modification or deletion. However, it doesn't specify what constitutes a 'contact' in this system beyond the basic concept.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (like authentication), when to choose this over 'update_contact' for existing contacts, or any constraints on usage. With siblings like 'search_contacts' and 'get_contact', there's no indication of workflow relationships.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a mutation (implied by 'create'), what permissions are needed, how drafts are stored, error handling, or rate limits. The mention of 'file path(s) as attachments' hints at input format but lacks depth.
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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and includes the key detail about attachments, making it appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with 6 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on required inputs, error cases, return values, and how it integrates with sibling tools (e.g., 'send_email' for sending drafts).
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%, so the description must compensate but only mentions 'attachments' parameter semantics. It doesn't explain the purpose of 'account_id', 'to', 'subject', 'body', or 'cc', leaving 5 out of 6 parameters without added meaning beyond the schema titles.
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 verb ('create') and resource ('email draft') with the specific capability of adding attachments via file paths. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'send_email' by focusing on draft creation rather than sending, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other email-related tools.
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 'send_email' or 'reply_to_email'. The description mentions attachments but doesn't specify prerequisites (e.g., whether authentication is required via 'authenticate_account') or constraints (e.g., file path formats).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Upload') which implies a write operation, but doesn't disclose critical traits like required permissions, file size limits, rate limits, error handling, or what happens on success (e.g., returns file ID). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in 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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste—it directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a basic upload operation and front-loaded with the key action. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (a mutation tool with 3 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., side effects, error cases), parameter usage, and expected outcomes. For a file creation tool in a cloud storage context, more context is needed to ensure safe and correct usage by an agent.
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%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It mentions 'local file' and 'OneDrive' which loosely map to 'local_file_path' and 'onedrive_path', but doesn't clarify parameter meanings (e.g., format of paths, what 'account_id' refers to). With 3 undocumented parameters, the description adds minimal semantic value beyond what's inferred from the tool name.
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 ('Upload') and the resource ('a local file to OneDrive'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'delete_file' and 'update_file' by specifying creation/upload rather than modification or deletion. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'get_file' or 'list_files' in terms of operation type beyond the verb 'upload'.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication), when not to use it (e.g., for updating existing files), or refer to sibling tools like 'update_file' for modifications or 'delete_file' for removal. Usage is implied by the verb 'upload' but lacks explicit context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Delete' implies a destructive mutation, but the description doesn't disclose whether deletion is permanent or reversible, what permissions are required, if there are rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap 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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse. Every word earns its place by specifying the scope ('file or folder').
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given this is a destructive tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the mutation's impact, required permissions, error conditions, or return values. For a tool that permanently removes data, more context is needed to use it safely and effectively.
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%, so the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description adds no information about the two required parameters (account_id and file_id), such as what they represent, where to find them, or format examples. It fails to compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions.
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 verb ('Delete') and resource ('a file or folder'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'delete_contact' and 'delete_email' by specifying the resource type. However, it doesn't specify whether this is permanent deletion or moves to trash, which would make it a 5.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (like authentication), distinguish from 'update_file' for modification, or reference sibling tools like 'move_email' for relocation. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions downloading to a file path, implying a write operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like permissions needed, file overwriting, network usage, error handling, or format of downloaded content. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps.
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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary details, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 4 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on parameter meanings, behavioral context (e.g., file system interactions), and expected outcomes, making it inadequate for a tool of this complexity.
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%, so the description must compensate. It only mentions 'specified file path' (mapping to save_path), but doesn't explain account_id, attachment_id, or email_id parameters. With 4 parameters and low coverage, the description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema.
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 ('Download') and resource ('email attachment') with the destination ('to a specified file path'). It distinguishes from siblings like get_email or get_file by specifying attachment retrieval. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential similar tools (though none exist in the sibling list).
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication), constraints, or sibling tools like get_email for email content. It's a standalone statement without context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions downloading but lacks details on permissions required, file size limits, overwrite behavior at the local path, error handling, or response format. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that performs file operations.
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, direct sentence that efficiently conveys the core action without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address key aspects like authentication needs, file handling behavior, or what happens on success/failure, leaving the agent with insufficient context for reliable use.
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%, so the description must compensate but adds no parameter details. It doesn't explain what 'account_id', 'file_id', or 'download_path' represent, their formats, or constraints (e.g., path must be writable). This leaves all three parameters undocumented beyond their names.
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 ('Download') and resource ('a file from OneDrive') with the destination ('to local path'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_attachment' or 'list_files' which might have overlapping functionality.
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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_attachment' (for email attachments) or 'list_files' (for browsing). The description implies downloading but doesn't specify prerequisites such as authentication or file accessibility.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions date range filtering and inclusion of recurring event instances, it doesn't address important behavioral aspects like pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or what happens when no events match the criteria.
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 extremely concise with a single sentence that efficiently communicates the core functionality. Every word earns its place, and the structure is front-loaded with the essential information about listing events with date range filtering.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 4 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain parameter usage, return format, error handling, or behavioral constraints. The mention of recurring event instances is helpful but doesn't compensate for the significant documentation gaps.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage and 4 parameters, the description provides no information about any parameters. It mentions 'specified date range' which relates to days_ahead/days_back, but doesn't explain these parameters or account_id and include_details. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.
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 tool's purpose: 'List calendar events within specified date range, including recurring event instances.' It specifies the verb ('List'), resource ('calendar events'), and scope ('within specified date range'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_events' or 'get_event'.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_events' or 'get_event'. It mentions date range filtering but doesn't explain when this specific listing approach is preferred over search functionality or single-event retrieval.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but only states the basic action without details on permissions, side effects (e.g., whether the email is removed from the source folder), error handling, or response format. This leaves critical operational aspects unspecified for a mutation tool.
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, direct sentence with no wasted words, making it easy to parse quickly. It efficiently conveys the core action without unnecessary elaboration, though this brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with 3 undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavior, parameter usage, and expected outcomes, leaving too much undefined for reliable agent operation in a context with many sibling tools.
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 schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the three parameters (account_id, destination_folder, email_id) are documented in the schema. The description adds no semantic information about these parameters, such as what format they expect or where to obtain them, failing to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.
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 ('move') and resource ('email') with the destination ('to another folder'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from potential siblings like 'delete_email' or 'update_email' which might also involve email manipulation, leaving room for ambiguity in tool selection.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'delete_email' or 'update_email', nor does it mention prerequisites such as needing an authenticated account or valid email/folder IDs. Without this context, an agent might struggle to apply it correctly in complex scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('reply') but doesn't mention permissions required, whether it's a mutation (likely yes), rate limits, or what the response looks like. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that modifies data.
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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of an email reply tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects, parameter meanings, or output expectations, making it inadequate for safe and effective use by an agent.
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%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It adds no meaning beyond the schema, failing to explain what 'account_id', 'email_id', or 'body' represent or how they should be formatted, leaving all three parameters semantically unclear.
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 ('reply') and target ('to all recipients of an email'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'reply_to_email' (which presumably replies to the sender only), missing full sibling distinction.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'reply_to_email' or 'send_email'. It lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing email) or exclusions, offering minimal usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but provides minimal behavioral insight. It implies a write operation ('reply') but doesn't disclose permissions, side effects (e.g., email sent immediately vs. saved as draft), rate limits, or response format. The 'sender only' adds some context but leaves critical gaps for a mutation tool.
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?
Extremely concise with a single, front-loaded sentence that wastes no words. The phrase 'sender only' efficiently clarifies scope without redundancy, making it appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Incomplete for a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage. The description lacks details on behavior, parameters, and expected outcomes, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use it effectively beyond basic intent.
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%, so the description must compensate but adds no parameter details. It doesn't explain what 'account_id', 'email_id', or 'body' represent, their formats, or constraints (e.g., 'body' as HTML/text). This leaves all three parameters semantically unclear beyond schema titles.
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 ('reply to') and resource ('an email'), with the clarifying scope 'sender only' distinguishing it from 'reply_all_email'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'send_email' or 'create_email_draft', which could be alternatives for email composition.
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 versus alternatives like 'reply_all_email', 'send_email', or 'create_email_draft'. The 'sender only' hint implies a distinction from 'reply_all_email', but lacks context on prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing email) or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a mutation operation ('update') but doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, what permissions are needed, if changes are reversible, or any rate limits. The 'etc.' suggests additional properties can be updated, but the scope and effects are unclear, leaving significant gaps for a tool that modifies data.
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 extremely concise—a single sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and examples, making it easy to scan. Every element ('update', 'email properties', examples) earns its place by conveying essential information efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (a mutation tool with 3 parameters, nested objects, and no annotations or output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on required permissions, error handling, return values, and parameter specifics. For a tool that modifies email data, this minimal description leaves too many operational questions unanswered, failing to provide adequate context for safe and effective use.
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%, so the description must compensate but adds minimal value. It mentions 'email properties' which loosely relates to the 'updates' parameter, but doesn't explain what 'account_id' or 'email_id' are, their formats, or the structure of 'updates' (e.g., key-value pairs). The description fails to clarify the three undocumented parameters, leaving semantics largely unexplained.
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 verb 'update' and resource 'email properties', listing specific examples like 'isRead, categories, flag'. It distinguishes from siblings like delete_email or move_email by focusing on property updates rather than deletion or relocation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other update tools like update_contact or update_event beyond the resource type.
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. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing email), exclusions (e.g., not for creating emails), or comparisons to siblings like modify_email or edit_email (though none exist in the list). It's a basic statement of function without contextual usage advice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Delete or cancel') but doesn't clarify the difference between deletion and cancellation, whether this requires specific permissions, if the action is reversible, what happens to attendees, or any rate limits. For a destructive operation, this leaves critical behavioral traits unspecified.
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 extremely concise—a single, clear sentence that front-loads the core action and resource. There is no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration, making it efficient and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a destructive operation with 3 parameters), lack of annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral nuances, parameter meanings, or expected outcomes, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand how to invoke it correctly.
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 description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the input schema provides. With 0% schema description coverage, the schema only lists parameter names and types without explaining their meaning. The description doesn't compensate by explaining what 'account_id', 'event_id', or 'send_cancellation' do, leaving parameters largely undocumented. Baseline 3 applies as the schema provides some structure, but value addition is minimal.
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 ('Delete or cancel') and resource ('a calendar event'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'delete_contact' or 'delete_file' by specifying the event resource, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar operations like 'respond_event' which might also modify event status.
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing authentication first), contrast with 'update_event' for modifications instead of deletion, or specify scenarios where deletion is appropriate versus cancellation. The description alone offers no usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but offers minimal information. It doesn't describe whether this is a read-only operation, how results are ordered, pagination behavior, error conditions, or rate limits. The description only states what it does, not how it behaves.
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 extremely concise—a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, though this brevity comes at the cost of detail. Every word earns its place by directly stating the tool's function.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is inadequate. It lacks essential context such as return format, error handling, authentication requirements, and differentiation from siblings like 'search_emails'. The agent would struggle to use this tool effectively based solely on the description.
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 description mentions 'specified folder', which loosely relates to the 'folder' parameter, but adds no meaningful semantics beyond what the schema's titles provide. With 0% schema description coverage, the description doesn't compensate by explaining parameter purposes, formats, or constraints, though it doesn't contradict the schema either.
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 ('List') and resource ('emails from specified folder'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from other email-related tools like 'get_email' (single email) and 'search_emails' (filtered search), though it doesn't explicitly mention these siblings.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_emails' or 'get_email'. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication), typical use cases, or limitations, leaving the agent to infer usage from context alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('List') but doesn't describe how listing works—e.g., pagination (implied by limit parameter), ordering, error handling, or what 'files and folders' includes (e.g., metadata, permissions). For a read operation with 3 parameters, this lacks critical context beyond the basic verb.
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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse. Every word ('List', 'files and folders', 'OneDrive') earns its place by conveying essential information without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return format (e.g., list of objects with properties), error cases, or how parameters interact (e.g., path filtering). For a listing tool with siblings like 'search_files', more context is needed to guide proper use.
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 description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the input schema provides (0% coverage). It mentions 'OneDrive' which hints at 'account_id' context, but doesn't explain 'path' (default '/') or 'limit' (default 50). With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving parameters under-documented. Baseline 3 is given as the schema at least defines them structurally.
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 verb ('List') and resource ('files and folders in OneDrive'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'search_files' by indicating a basic listing operation rather than a search. However, it doesn't specify scope (e.g., all files vs. specific folder) beyond what the path parameter implies.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_files' or 'get_file'. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication), context (e.g., for browsing vs. targeted retrieval), or exclusions (e.g., not for searching by content). This leaves the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states it uses the 'modern search API' without detailing behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens on errors. It mentions no constraints or side effects beyond the basic operation.
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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on authentication, error handling, return format, and parameter usage, which are critical for a search tool with multiple inputs in this context.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The tool description adds no parameter-specific information beyond implying 'query' is for search terms and 'account_id' targets OneDrive. It doesn't explain format, constraints, or the 'limit' default behavior, leaving gaps in understanding.
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 verb ('Search') and resource ('files in OneDrive'), and specifies the API method ('modern search API'). It distinguishes from generic file operations but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_files' or 'unified_search'.
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 'list_files' (which might list without search) or 'unified_search' (which might search across multiple resource types). The description implies a search context but offers no explicit usage rules or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'traditional search' but doesn't explain what that means operationally - whether it's a fuzzy search, exact match, what fields are searched, or any limitations. It also doesn't disclose important behavioral aspects like pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions.
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 extremely concise - just two short sentences that get straight to the point. Every word earns its place, with no redundant information or unnecessary elaboration. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and follows with the key contextual constraint.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a search tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what constitutes a contact, what fields are searchable, what the search returns, or how results are structured. The mention of 'traditional search' is vague and doesn't provide enough operational context for effective use.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage for 3 parameters, the description provides no information about what the parameters mean or how they should be used. It doesn't explain what 'account_id' refers to, what format the 'query' should take, or what the 'limit' parameter controls. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.
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 ('Search') and resource ('contacts'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this tool from 'unified_search' by noting that unified_search doesn't support contacts, but doesn't explicitly differentiate it from other sibling search tools like 'search_emails' or 'search_events'.
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 provides some usage context by explaining why this tool exists ('since unified_search doesn't support contacts'), which implies when to use this instead of unified_search. However, it doesn't offer explicit guidance on when to use this versus other sibling search tools (search_emails, search_events, search_files) or versus list_contacts.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the tool completes authentication and returns account info on success, but fails to disclose critical behavioral traits: error handling (e.g., what happens if authentication fails), side effects (e.g., session creation), permissions required, or rate limits. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first, followed by structured Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value, but minor verbosity in the parameter explanation (e.g., parenthetical detail) slightly reduces efficiency, preventing a perfect score.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (authentication completion, a mutation), lack of annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It omits details on failure modes, return format beyond 'Account information', and broader context like security implications, making it insufficient for safe and effective use by an AI agent.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by explaining that 'flow_cache' is 'The flow data returned from authenticate_account (the _flow_cache field)', clarifying its source and purpose beyond the schema's generic 'Flow Cache' title. However, it doesn't detail the parameter's format, constraints, or how to obtain it fully, leaving gaps in documentation.
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 tool's purpose: 'Complete the authentication process after the user has entered the device code.' It specifies the verb ('complete') and resource ('authentication process'), and distinguishes it from sibling 'authenticate_account' by handling the final step after device code entry. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all other authentication-related tools (though none are listed), keeping it from a perfect score.
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 usage by referencing 'after the user has entered the device code' and dependency on 'authenticate_account' for the flow_cache, providing some context. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives (e.g., if other auth methods exist) or clear prerequisites, leaving room for ambiguity in a broader toolset.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'size limits' and default values for parameters, which adds some context about output constraints. However, it lacks critical details like whether this is a read-only operation, error handling, rate limits, or authentication requirements. The description is insufficient for a tool with 5 parameters and no annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The parameter explanations are clear and efficient, with no redundant information. However, the structure could be improved by separating usage guidance from parameter details for better readability.
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?
Given 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers parameter semantics well but lacks behavioral context (e.g., read-only nature, error cases) and output details. For a tool with this complexity, it should include more about what 'email details' entails and any limitations beyond size.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description provides meaningful semantics for all 5 parameters beyond the schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains 'email_id' and 'account_id' as identifiers, and clarifies the purpose of 'include_body', 'body_max_length', and 'include_attachments' with default values. This compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions, though it doesn't detail format constraints (e.g., ID formats).
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 tool's purpose with 'Get email details' and specifies 'with size limits', indicating it retrieves email metadata and content. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_emails' (which lists emails) and 'search_emails' (which searches), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'get_attachment' or other get_* tools beyond the resource type.
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. It doesn't mention when to choose 'get_email' over 'list_emails' or 'search_emails', nor does it specify prerequisites like authentication. The description only lists parameters without contextual usage advice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the modern search API and entity_types scope, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: whether this is read-only or has side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior (limit parameter hints at it), error handling, or what the output looks like. The description adds some context but leaves significant gaps for a search tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately concise with two sentences: the first states the core purpose, the second details entity_types. It's front-loaded with the main function. No wasted words, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points for entity_types).
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage for a 4-parameter tool, the description is incomplete. It covers entity_types well but misses critical context: authentication needs, output format, error handling, and usage distinctions from sibling tools. For a search tool with multiple parameters and siblings, this leaves the agent under-informed.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful semantics for entity_types by listing possible values and stating default behavior, which clarifies beyond the schema's generic array/null type. However, it doesn't explain account_id, query, or limit parameters, leaving three of four parameters with minimal guidance. The value added is partial.
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 tool's purpose: 'Search across multiple Microsoft 365 resources using the modern search API.' It specifies the verb ('search') and resource scope ('multiple Microsoft 365 resources'), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling search tools like search_contacts or search_emails beyond mentioning broader scope.
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 usage context by mentioning it searches 'across multiple Microsoft 365 resources' and listing entity_types, suggesting it's for cross-resource searches. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. the more specific sibling search tools (e.g., search_emails for email-only searches), nor does it mention prerequisites like authentication.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool lists accounts but doesn't describe what 'signed-in' means operationally, whether it returns active sessions or stored credentials, the format of the output, or any limitations (e.g., rate limits, permissions required). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
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, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality without any fluff. It's front-loaded with the essential action and resource, making it easy to parse. Every word earns its place, and there's no wasted verbiage or redundancy.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but minimal. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavior, output format, or usage context, which could be important for an AI agent to invoke it correctly. Without annotations or output schema, more elaboration on what 'list' entails would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there's no need for parameter documentation in the description. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, focusing instead on the tool's purpose. This meets the baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools, as it avoids unnecessary details.
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 ('List') and resource ('all signed-in Microsoft accounts'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'authenticate_account' or 'get_contact' by focusing on listing accounts rather than authentication or specific resource retrieval. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list tools like 'list_contacts' or 'list_emails' beyond the resource type.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether authentication is required), use cases (e.g., checking available accounts before operations), or exclusions (e.g., not for listing non-signed-in accounts). With siblings like 'authenticate_account' and 'check_availability', some context on sequencing would be helpful but is absent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it implies a write/mutation operation (responding changes invitation status), it lacks critical details: required permissions, whether responses are reversible, side effects (e.g., notifications sent), or error conditions. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. Every word earns its place: 'Respond to event invitation' establishes the action, and the parenthetical lists response options without redundancy. It's appropriately sized for this tool's complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (mutation operation with 4 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral traits like side effects or error handling, and parameter semantics are only partially addressed. For a tool that modifies event states, more context is needed to ensure safe and correct usage.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It mentions response types (accept, decline, tentativelyAccept), which clarifies the 'response' parameter's purpose, but doesn't explain 'account_id', 'event_id', or 'message'. The description adds some value but doesn't fully address the coverage gap for all four parameters.
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 specific action ('Respond to event invitation') and enumerates the three possible response types (accept, decline, tentativelyAccept). It uses precise verbs and distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'create_event' or 'update_event' by focusing on invitation responses rather than event creation or modification.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing event invitation), exclusions, or how it differs from related tools like 'update_event' for modifying event details. Without such context, an agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the tool initiates device flow authentication and returns instructions/codes, which covers the core behavior. However, it lacks details on error handling, rate limits, authentication scopes, or what happens if authentication fails, leaving gaps for a mutation tool (authentication typically involves state changes).
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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by essential details about returns and user actions in two additional sentences. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured for quick understanding.
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?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description provides basic context on what the tool does and its output (instructions and device code). However, for an authentication tool that likely involves state changes and user interaction, it lacks details on success/failure outcomes, token storage, or integration with sibling tools like 'complete_authentication', making it minimally adequate but incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately does not discuss parameters, focusing instead on the tool's purpose and output. This meets the baseline for tools with no parameters, as it avoids unnecessary details.
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 specific action ('authenticate a new Microsoft account') and method ('using device flow authentication'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'complete_authentication' which likely handles a different authentication phase. It precisely identifies both the verb and resource without being tautological.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context by explaining that this tool initiates authentication and returns instructions for user completion, suggesting it should be used at the start of an authentication workflow. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'complete_authentication' or other account-related tools, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![microsoft-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/elyxlz/microsoft-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/elyxlz/microsoft-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![microsoft-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/elyxlz/microsoft-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/elyxlz/microsoft-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/elyxlz/microsoft-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server