Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
outlook-mcp

outlook-mcp

by jagarlamudisrinath
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

mark_email

Change an email's read status by providing its entry ID and optionally setting the read flag to true (read) or false (unread).

Instructions

Mark an email as read or unread.

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": "mark_email"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
readNo
entry_idYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so description must fully disclose behavior. It only says 'mark an email as read or unread' with no detail on idempotency, reversibility, permissions, or error states (e.g., missing email). Minimal context beyond the basic action.

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?

Single sentence with no filler, perfectly concise. Every word adds value.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a simple toggle with an output schema (not shown), the description is minimally sufficient. However, it could mention that the email must exist or what happens on invalid input. Lacks completeness for robustness.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. 'read or unread' hints at the 'read' parameter's purpose, but 'entry_id' is completely unexplained. No mention of defaults or required fields.

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?

Description clearly states the action ('mark an email') and the binary state ('read or unread'), matching the 'mark_email' name. It uniquely identifies this tool among siblings like 'delete_email', 'forward_email', etc.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like 'get_email' (to check status) or other mutation tools. No exclusions or prerequisites mentioned.

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