Outlook MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

update_rule

Modify an existing Outlook inbox rule by enabling, disabling, renaming, or reordering it; disable it to test missing mail without deleting.

Instructions

Enable, disable, rename or reorder an existing rule (rule_id from list_rules). Disabling is the reversible way to test whether a rule is the one making mail go missing, and the safe alternative to delete_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": {
      "rule_id": "<rule_id>"
    },
    "name": "update_rule"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	No
`enabled`	No
`rule_id`	Yes
`sequence`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 9, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the safety burden and does so in part: it declares disabling reversible and frames it as a diagnostic test for missing mail. It stops short of stating that this is a partial update (fields omitted are left unchanged) and says nothing about permission requirements.

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 verb set and resource, followed by the alternative-choice guidance. No filler or redundancy.

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

Completeness3/5

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

No annotations and no output schema, so the description is the only behavioral source. It covers purpose, source of the ID, and safety versus deletion, but omits what an update returns, whether unspecified fields are preserved, and any auth or rate considerations.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds real meaning for rule_id (comes from list_rules) and implicitly maps the field-list to name/enabled/sequence, but sequence ordering semantics and the partial-update behavior of nullable fields remain 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?

Names four specific operations (enable, disable, rename, reorder) on a specific resource (an existing rule) and identifies the parameter's origin via 'rule_id from list_rules'. It is clearly distinguishable from create_rule and delete_rule in the sibling list.

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 routes two adjacent tools: list_rules supplies rule_id, and delete_rule is named as the non-preferred alternative with a stated condition ('disabling... is the safe alternative'). An agent can pick between disable-via-update_rule and delete_rule without further inference.

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