Outlook MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

delete_rule

Delete an Outlook inbox rule permanently; confirm the rule name first, or disable the rule if you need a reversible option.

Instructions

Delete an inbox rule. Cannot be undone, so confirm_name must match the rule's current name: call without it to be told the name, confirm with the user, then call again. update_rule(enabled=false) is the reversible alternative.

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": {
      "rule_id": "<rule_id>"
    },
    "name": "delete_rule"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`rule_id`	Yes
`confirm_name`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 9, 2026

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does: it declares the operation irreversible, explains the confirm_name guard rail and the multi-call discovery flow, and points to a non-destructive alternative. This is precisely the safety context an agent needs before a destructive call.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the destructive nature of the operation, then the required protocol, then the escape hatch. Every clause carries decision-relevant information with no filler.

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 destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers irreversibility, the confirmation flow, and the safer alternative. The only meaningful gap is not stating where rule_id comes from, which matters given zero schema documentation.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It fully explains confirm_name (must equal the rule's current name, omit it to learn the name), but says nothing about rule_id's origin or format, leaving the agent to infer that list_rules supplies it.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Delete an inbox rule") and immediately distinguishes itself from the sibling update_rule by naming it as the reversible alternative. An agent can tell exactly what this tool does and what it does not do without opening the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: prefer update_rule(enabled=false) as the reversible alternative, and follow a two-step protocol (call without confirm_name, confirm with the user, then call again). No inference is left to the agent.

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