Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Graph Mail MCP

Graph Mail MCP

by hanhandly
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

mail_get_attachment

Retrieve email attachment metadata, text, or base64 content from Microsoft 365 by supplying message and attachment IDs, with an optional byte limit.

Instructions

Get bounded attachment metadata/text/base64 content.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "messageId": "<messageId>",
      "attachmentId": "<attachmentId>"
    },
    "name": "mail_get_attachment"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
modeNometadata
maxBytesNo
messageIdYes
attachmentIdYes
mailboxScopeNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.4/5.0
Behavior1/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided. The description does not disclose side effects, permissions required, rate limits, or the exact output format. It does not explain the meaning of 'bounded' or the maxBytes parameter's effect.

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, using only 5 words, and is well-structured as a single phrase without redundant information.

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 5 parameters, 2 required, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain return types, error handling, or any additional context needed for correct usage.

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 includes parameters like mode, maxBytes, messageId, attachmentId, and mailboxScope, but the description offers no explanation for any of them. The schema itself provides some structure, but the description adds no semantic detail.

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 'Get bounded attachment metadata/text/base64 content' clearly indicates the tool retrieves attachment content with a verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like mail_list_attachments. However, the term 'bounded' is vague and could be misinterpreted.

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 does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention conditions or exclusions, leaving usage guidelines unclear.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools