Outlook MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

whoami

Confirms the Outlook account the server is signed in to by returning its name and address so you can verify the mailbox before acting or answer account-connection questions.

Instructions

Which account the server is signed in to (name and address). Use it to confirm the mailbox before acting, or when the user asks which account is connected.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "whoami"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 9, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It correctly implies a side-effect-free read and discloses the returned fields (name and address), but it does not state what happens when no account is signed in or whether the call can fail.

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 short sentences, zero waste: the return content is front-loaded and the usage triggers follow immediately. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 trivial zero-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what it does, what it returns, and when to call it. The only missing element is failure behavior when unauthenticated, which is a minor gap rather than a blocker.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline of 4 would normally apply. The description also adds nothing about inputs, which is expected here, but it likewise does not clarify that the call is unconditional; a 3 reflects a neutral, no-gap-no-value situation.

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?

The description names the exact resource it reports: the account the server is signed in to, including name and address. That is unambiguous and distinct from siblings such as mailbox_overview or list_folders, though it is phrased as a noun clause rather than a verb+resource statement.

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?

Two concrete triggers are given: confirm the mailbox before acting, and answer a user question about which account is connected. No exclusion or named alternative is offered, but for a zero-parameter identity check there is little competing choice to disambiguate.

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