Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
outlook-mcp

outlook-mcp

by jagarlamudisrinath
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

reply_to_email

Compose and send a reply to a specific email using its entry ID. Supports replying to all recipients or saving as a draft for later.

Instructions

Reply to an email. The original message is quoted below your reply.

Args: entry_id: EntryID of the email to reply to. body: Your reply text. reply_all: Reply to all recipients instead of just the sender. 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>",
      "body": "<body>"
    },
    "name": "reply_to_email"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bodyYes
entry_idYes
reply_allNo
save_as_draftNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that the original message is quoted below the reply, and explains the effects of reply_all and save_as_draft (though in parameter list). Does not mention sending disposition or error cases, but adequate for a reply tool.

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: one sentence for purpose, then a docstring listing parameters with explanations. No unnecessary words, well-structured and 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?

Given the existence of an output schema (not shown), the description covers main behavior and parameters thoroughly. Could mention that the reply is sent immediately unless save_as_draft is true, but otherwise complete for a simple tool.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description includes a docstring that explains each parameter (entry_id, body, reply_all, save_as_draft) with clear semantics beyond the schema titles. Fully compensates for lack of schema descriptions.

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 'Reply to an email' which is a specific verb-resource combination. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'send_email' (new email) and 'forward_email' by focusing on replying.

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 use when replying to an existing email, and provides parameter details for reply_all and save_as_draft. However, it does not explicitly exclude other cases like forwarding or sending new emails.

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