owa-mail-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Forward Email

forward_email

Destructive

Forward an email message with attachments to specified recipients. Adds a note above the original content and sends immediately.

Instructions

Forward an email with its attachments. Sends immediately.

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": {
      "item_id": "<item_id>",
      "to": "<to>"
    },
    "name": "forward_email"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`to`	Yes	recipients — addresses or names (an ambiguous name is refused and nothing is sent; pass an exact address).
`body`	No	note added above the forwarded content.
`item_id`	Yes	item_id of the message to forward.
`body_type`	No	"HTML" or "Text".	HTML

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 6, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Beyond annotations (destructiveHint=true), the description adds 'Sends immediately,' which signals that the action is executed without delay, and 'with its attachments,' clarifying that attachments are preserved. No contradiction with annotations.

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 that immediately state the core function and a behavioral note. No wasted words.

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?

Given the simple forward operation, the description covers the primary behavior and timing. The schema and output schema provide parameter and response details. It could have noted that it requires an existing item, but the schema makes that clear.

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?

All 4 parameters are fully documented in the schema with descriptions (100% coverage), so the description's omission of parameter details is acceptable. The description itself does not add parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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?

The description uses the specific verb 'Forward' and identifies the resource ('an email with its attachments'), clearly distinguishing it from send/reply tools. The phrase 'with its attachments' adds a key characteristic.

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?

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'send_email' or 'reply_email'. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided.

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