Outlook MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

outlook_send_email

Send an email instantly from your Outlook mailbox. Specify recipients, subject, body, and optional CC to deliver messages directly through the Microsoft Graph API.

Instructions

Send an email immediately from the signed-in mailbox.

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": {
      "to": "<to>",
      "subject": "<subject>",
      "body": "<body>"
    },
    "name": "outlook_send_email"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`cc`	No
`to`	Yes
`body`	Yes
`subject`	Yes
`bodyType`	No	Text

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 3, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions sending from the signed-in mailbox, but does not disclose irreversibility, potential errors, response behavior, or required permissions beyond the implicit auth. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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?

The description is a single concise sentence with no filler words. It is front-loaded with the action ('Send an email') and includes a relevant qualifier ('immediately'), making it well-structured for its length.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far from complete. It lacks critical information about return values, error handling, and parameter guidance, making it insufficient for an agent to invoke the tool confidently.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

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, but it mentions no parameters at all. The schema provides names and types but no detailed semantics, and the description adds no meaning to 'to', 'subject', 'body', 'cc', or 'bodyType'.

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 uses a specific verb ('Send') and resource ('email') with a clear scope ('from the signed-in mailbox'). It clearly states the action but does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'outlook_create_draft', though 'immediately' hints at the distinction.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The word 'immediately' implies a usage context (send now vs. draft for later), but the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of alternatives like 'outlook_create_draft'. There are no when-not-to-use instructions or named alternatives.

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

Deploy Server