hey365_sessionSummarize Microsoft 365 meetings, Teams threads, and Outlook conversations to extract decisions, action items, unresolved questions, and reply needs. Optionally generates reply drafts.
会議 / Teams スレッド / Outlook 会話を要約し、決定事項・Action Items・自分の宿題・未解決事項・返信要否を出力する。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sessionId | Yes | 会議 ID / Teams thread ID / Outlook conversation ID / 会議名 | |
| includeDraft | No | 返信が必要な場合に返信案も生成するか |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the outputs (decisions, action items, etc.) and implies a read-only summarization operation, but it doesn't explicitly state whether it modifies anything, requires specific permissions, or has any side effects. It also doesn't mention the behavior of includeDraft beyond what the schema says. It's transparent about outputs but not about the operation's side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the action (summarize) and then enumerates the outputs. It is efficient with no wasted words and clearly structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description lists all key output categories (decisions, action items, homework, unresolved items, reply need) and the optional draft generation is captured by the schema. No output schema exists, so the description adequately specifies the expected return content. It could mention prerequisites like authentication, but given the sibling suite, setup likely handles that. Overall, it's sufficiently complete for an agent to call it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% for both parameters (sessionId and includeDraft), so the schema already documents them well. The tool description does not add extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides; it only references the output categories. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it summarizes meetings/Teams threads/Outlook conversations and lists the specific outputs (decisions, action items, homework, unresolved items, reply need). This is a specific verb+resource combination and distinguishes it from sibling tools like hey365_draft or hey365_send, though it doesn't explicitly name them. It's not a tautology and provides clear intent.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage: if you need a summary of a session, use this tool. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use it versus siblings like hey365_triage or hey365_draft, nor does it provide exclusions or alternative conditions. The context is clear but not fully explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.