Outlook MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

create_folder

Creates a mail folder at the top level or inside a specified parent and returns its ID for moving messages or building rules. Check existing folders first to reuse one.

Instructions

Create a mail folder, at the top level or inside parent (a folder id). Check list_folders first so an existing folder is reused. Returns the new folder's id for move_messages or create_rule.

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": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "create_folder"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes
`parent`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 9, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key post-call fact (returns the new folder's id) and the placement model, but says nothing about what happens on a duplicate name, permission requirements, or whether creation is reversible.

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?

Three short sentences, no filler: what it does, a caution, then what it returns and where that value is used. Front-loaded with the action and scope.

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?

For a two-parameter creation tool with no annotations or output schema, this covers placement, the duplication check, and the return value's use. Adds would be error/duplicate behavior, but nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does for the non-obvious parameter by clarifying that parent is a folder id rather than a name or path. It does not restate that name is the folder's display name, but that is largely self-evident.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create a mail folder') and adds scope: top level or nested inside a parent. It names downstream consumers (move_messages, create_rule), which helps an agent place the tool in a workflow, though it does not positively differentiate against any sibling that also creates things.

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?

Gives a concrete precondition — check list_folders first so an existing folder is reused — which is exactly the alternative-path guidance an agent needs before creating a duplicate. No explicit when-not-to-call case beyond that reuse rule.

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