Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
outlook-mcp

outlook-mcp

by jagarlamudisrinath
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

get_email

Retrieves the complete content of an email using its unique Entry ID, with an option to limit the body character count.

Instructions

Read a full email by its entry_id (from list_emails/search_emails).

Args: entry_id: The Outlook EntryID of the email. body_max_chars: Truncate the body after this many characters.

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>"
    },
    "name": "get_email"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
entry_idYes
body_max_charsNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The description indicates it is a read operation (non-destructive) and mentions body_max_chars truncation. However, with no annotations, it lacks disclosure about error handling, permissions, or other side effects beyond what is inferred.

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 concise: one line for purpose and a clear Args list. Every sentence serves a purpose, no fluff. Front-loaded with the key action.

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?

Given the simple 2-parameter tool with an output schema (not shown), the description covers the essential behavioral trait (truncation) and source of entry_id. It is complete enough for an agent to use correctly, though it could mention response format.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining entry_id's source (from list_emails/search_emails) and body_max_chars's truncation behavior. This adds meaning beyond the schema's title and default.

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 'Read a full email by its entry_id', specifying the verb (read), resource (email), and how to obtain the identifier (from list_emails/search_emails). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_email or forward_email.

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 when you have an entry_id from list/search and want full content, but does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives. It is clear but could be more prescriptive.

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