Retrieve emails from an authenticated Outlook inbox, returning sender, subject, date, and body preview. Specify the maximum number of emails to fetch.
Lista emails do inbox do Outlook da conta autenticada. Retorna remetente, assunto, data e prévia do corpo.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limite | No | Número máximo de emails (padrão: 20) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses what fields are returned (sender, subject, date, preview), which is useful. However, it omits details like ordering, whether only unread emails are listed, or any side effects. It is not misleading, but minimal for a read operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and includes the return fields efficiently. Perfectly concise for a simple tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core functionality and return structure. It does not mention ordering or pagination, but these are not critical for basic use. The main gap is the lack of explicit sibling differentiation, but that is covered under usage guidelines.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'limite', which already defines its meaning and default. The tool description adds no additional semantics or usage examples beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists emails from the authenticated account's Outlook inbox, specifying the verb 'Lista' and the resource. It also mentions the return fields (sender, subject, date, preview), which helps distinguish it from sibling tools like sending emails or calendar operations. The implicit distinction from 'outlook_inbox_compartilhado' is present via 'da conta autenticada'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention the sibling 'outlook_inbox_compartilhado' for shared inboxes or any exclusions. There is no hint of when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer 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.