List emails from a shared Outlook mailbox by providing its address. Useful for checking messages in accounts like agenda@domain.com.
Lista emails de uma caixa compartilhada do Outlook (ex: agenda@dominio.com).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| caixa_email | Yes | Endereço da caixa compartilhada |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It clearly indicates a read-style list operation, but it does not mention return format, pagination, access requirements, or any potential side effects.
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?
A single compact sentence with no filler. The action and resource are front-loaded, making it immediately scannable for an agent.
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 one-parameter list operation with no output schema, the description sufficiently states what is returned (emails) and for which mailbox. It does not detail output fields, but that is not a major gap here.
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 coverage is 100% and the parameter already has a description. The tool description adds a concrete example address ('agenda@dominio.com'), which reinforces the expected format beyond the schema alone.
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 uses a specific verb ('Lista') and a specific resource ('emails de uma caixa compartilhada do Outlook'). It clearly separates this tool from the sibling outlook_inbox by emphasizing the shared mailbox scope, plus a concrete example address.
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?
Usage context is implied: use this tool for shared Outlook mailboxes rather than a personal inbox. However, the description does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives or mention exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.