Outlook MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

search_message_ids

Collect up to 5,000 Outlook message IDs that match a search query for bulk actions, optionally scoped to a folder; returns IDs, count, and first 50 summaries.

Instructions

Every message id matching a search, up to 5000, for a bulk action. Same query syntax as search_messages; all folders unless folder is given.

Returns message_ids, count and the first 50 summaries. Use search_messages instead when the user just wants to see results.

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": {
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "search_message_ids"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No
`query`	Yes
`folder`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 9, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses the 5000 result cap, the default all-folders scope, and the return shape (message_ids, count, first 50 summaries). It stops short of stating that the operation is read-only or how the limit parameter interacts with the 5000 ceiling.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the core behavior and return shape, then the routing rule. 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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by naming the returned fields and the 50-summary truncation. The only real gap is the unexplained limit parameter, which matters for a tool whose purpose is bulk retrieval.

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 the description must compensate. It explains query syntax by reference ('same query syntax as search_messages') and folder scope ('all folders unless folder is given'), but says nothing about the limit parameter or its default of 1000, leaving one of three parameters undocumented.

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 ('Every message id matching a search') plus the 5000 cap and the bulk-action intent, which cleanly separates it from the sibling search_messages that returns viewable results.

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?

Explicitly names the alternative and the condition that selects it: 'Use search_messages instead when the user just wants to see results.' Combined with 'for a bulk action', the when-to-use decision is fully determined.

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