Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
outlook-mcp

outlook-mcp

by jagarlamudisrinath
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

save_attachments

Save all attachments from an Outlook email to a specified local directory. Provide the email's EntryID and target folder path.

Instructions

Save all attachments of an email to a local directory.

Args: entry_id: The email's EntryID. save_dir: Directory to save into (created if missing).

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>",
      "save_dir": "<save_dir>"
    },
    "name": "save_attachments"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
entry_idYes
save_dirYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Discloses that the save directory is created if missing, which is useful behavioral info. However, no annotations exist, and the description omits other behaviors like overwrite policy or error handling.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is short and front-loaded with the main purpose. The 'Args:' section repeats parameter info but adds context. Could be slightly more concise.

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?

Minimally complete for a simple tool. Does not mention return values (though output schema exists), edge cases like no attachments, or behavior for duplicate filenames.

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 provides meaningful explanations for both parameters: entry_id as 'The email's EntryID' and save_dir as 'Directory to save into (created if missing)'.

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 it saves all attachments of an email to a local directory, using specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings as there is no other attachment-related tool.

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 versus alternatives, or when not to use it. Does not mention prerequisites or context.

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