Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
msgraph-mcp

msgraph-mcp

by jspv
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

update_message

Update email message properties such as read/unread status, follow-up flags (flagged, complete, notFlagged), or color categories.

Instructions

Update message properties: read/unread, follow-up flag (flagged/complete/notFlagged), or color categories.

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>"
    },
    "name": "update_message"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
is_readNo
account_idNo
categoriesNo
message_idYes
flag_statusNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

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 are provided, so description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions 'update' without discussing mutation implications, permissions, side effects, or whether changes are incremental. Minimal transparency.

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, front-loaded with verb and resource, lists key parameters without redundancy. Every word is necessary and informative.

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?

With 5 parameters, no schema descriptions, no annotations, and an output schema, the description is incomplete. It should explain all parameters, mention response behavior, and clarify incremental updates. Missing account_id is a notable gap.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 0%, so description must explain parameters. It adds meaning for is_read, flag_status, and categories, but omits account_id and does not clarify message_id beyond its required status. Partially compensates for missing 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?

Description clearly states the tool updates message properties, listing specific attributes: read/unread, follow-up flag, and color categories. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_message, delete_message, or move_message.

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 like bulk_manage_messages. Does not specify prerequisites or situations where other tools are preferred.

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