outlook_delete_contact
Delete a contact by its unique ID from your Outlook account.
Instructions
Delete a contact by ID.
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| contact_id | Yes |
Delete a contact by its unique ID from your Outlook account.
Delete a contact by ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| contact_id | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description aligns with annotations (destructiveHint=true) but does not add behavioral context beyond what annotations already provide. For instance, it does not disclose whether deletion is permanent, requires confirmation, or impacts related data. With annotations present, the description should add context but fails to do so.
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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It could potentially benefit from a bit more detail, but it remains appropriately sized for a simple tool.
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?
For a tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate: it states the core action. However, it lacks detail on error handling, expected response, or ID format, which limits completeness for an agent that must produce correct arguments.
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 0% and the description does not explain the 'contact_id' parameter's format, source, or constraints. The agent must infer that it is an identifier without any additional guidance.
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 'Delete a contact by ID' clearly states the action (delete), the resource (contact), and the identifier mechanism (by ID), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like update, get, or create contact.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., outlook_update_contact) or any prerequisites such as the existence of the contact. The agent receives no usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/mpalermiti/outlook-mcp'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server