Skip to main content
Glama

outlook_read_email

Read an Outlook email on your Mac. Extract and supply email content for use by connected AI agents.

Instructions

Read an Outlook email

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Implementation Reference

  • server.js:106-110 (registration)
    The tool 'outlook_read_email' is registered via a loop over TOOLS array. Each tool, including outlook_read_email, is registered with a stub handler that returns an inspection message. The real implementation is in a native binary (macOS/Windows/Linux) not present in this codebase.
    for (const [name, desc] of TOOLS) {
      server.tool(name, desc, {}, async () => ({
        content: [{ type: "text", text: "This is an inspection stub. Install Local MCP: npx -y local-mcp@latest setup" }],
      }));
    }
  • server.js:46-46 (registration)
    The 'outlook_read_email' tool name and description are defined in the TOOLS array as ['outlook_read_email', 'Read an Outlook email'].
    ["outlook_read_email", "Read an Outlook email"],
Behavior1/5

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

With no annotations and only a two-word description, there is no disclosure of how the email is selected (e.g., by ID, most recent, or current selection). The tool's behavior is entirely opaque.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely short but fails to provide necessary details. It is not appropriately sized; a single sentence that only restates the name does not earn its place.

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

Completeness1/5

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

Given no parameters and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain how to specify the email or what the output contains, making it unusable for correct invocation.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100% vacuously. Baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter information beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states 'Read an Outlook email', which is a clear verb+resource. However, it lacks specificity compared to sibling tools like outlook_list_emails or read_email, and does not differentiate how this tool identifies which email to read.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as outlook_search_emails or read_email. The description gives no context about prerequisites or when not to use it.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/lanchuske/local-mcp-releases'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server