msgraph-mcp

by jspv

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Hybrid

reply_to_message

Reply to an email message with a preview option. Use dry-run to review before sending.

Instructions

Reply to a message. Defaults to dry-run (preview only). Set dry_run=False to actually send.

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": {
      "message_id": "<message_id>",
      "body": "<body>"
    },
    "name": "reply_to_message"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`body`	Yes
`dry_run`	No
`send_as`	No
`reply_all`	No
`account_id`	No
`message_id`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 29, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the dry-run default and how to actually send, but does not mention other behavioral traits such as required permissions, irreversibility, or side effects. Partial but not 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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no filler. Every word is functional.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Despite having 6 parameters (2 required) and an output schema, the description is very brief. It lacks parameter explanations, usage scenarios, and comparison to siblings. For a tool of this complexity, more detail is needed.

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%, meaning the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description only adds context for dry_run, while other parameters (body, send_as, reply_all, account_id, message_id) are left unexplained. Insufficient value added beyond the schema.

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 verb 'Reply' and the resource 'message', differentiating it from siblings like send_message and forward_message. It also notes the dry-run default, which is specific to this tool.

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?

The description provides minimal usage context: it mentions dry-run behavior but does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like send_message or forward_message, nor does it give prerequisites or exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.