Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
outlook-mcp

outlook-mcp

by jagarlamudisrinath
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

forward_email

Forward an email with attachments to specified recipients, with an optional comment. Save as draft to send later.

Instructions

Forward an email (attachments included).

Args: entry_id: EntryID of the email to forward. to: Recipient address(es), semicolon-separated. comment: Optional text placed above the forwarded message. save_as_draft: Save to Drafts instead of sending.

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": {
      "entry_id": "<entry_id>",
      "to": "<to>"
    },
    "name": "forward_email"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
toYes
commentNo
entry_idYes
save_as_draftNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Discloses attachment handling and optional save-as-draft behavior, but with no annotations, the description carries the full burden. Lacks details on delivery guarantees, error handling, or side effects. Meets a basic level but could be more comprehensive.

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?

Description is concise with a clear one-line purpose followed by a structured Args list. No unnecessary words, and the key action is front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Covers the main functionality and all parameters. An output schema exists, so the return value is presumably documented. Missing prerequisites or error info, but overall adequate for a simple tool.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description's Args section explains each parameter's purpose and format, such as 'semicolon-separated' for the 'to' field and the behavior of 'save_as_draft'. This adds significant value beyond the schema titles.

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 tool forwards an email with attachments, using a specific verb and resource. It is distinct from sibling tools like send_email or reply_to_email, which handle different email actions.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like reply_to_email or send_email. The usage is implied by the tool's name and description, but no exclusions or context are provided.

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