List contacts with cursor pagination for one-shot queries. Use the delta variant for recurring polling agents.
List contacts with cursor pagination.
Use for one-shot queries; use outlook_list_contacts_delta for polling/recurring agents.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | No | ||
| cursor | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.30.2Input schema / properties / count / titleRemoved value: -"Count"Input schema / properties / cursor / anyOfRemoved value: -[
- {
- "type": "string"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
-]Input schema / properties / cursor / defaultRemoved value: -nullInput schema / properties / cursor / titleRemoved value: -"Cursor"Input schema / properties / cursor / typeAdded value: +"string"Input schema / titleRemoved value: -"outlook_list_contactsArguments"v1.11.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the bar is lower. The description adds that results are cursor-paginated, which is useful behavioral context, but says nothing about ordering, what a page contains, or how to detect the end of results.
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?
Two short sentences, zero filler, with the core purpose and the routing rule both front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place.
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 simple read-only list tool with no output schema this is nearly enough, but the completely undocumented parameters leave the agent guessing about page sizing and cursor reuse. A single clause on 'count' and cursor round-tripping would close the gap.
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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It only gestures at 'cursor pagination' without explaining that the cursor is the token returned by a prior call, and it says nothing at all about 'count' (default 25, any max).
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('List contacts') plus the pagination mechanism, and explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling outlook_list_contacts_delta. An agent can distinguish it from the delta variant without opening either schema.
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?
Gives an explicit when-to-use rule ('one-shot queries') and names the alternative with the condition that selects it ('polling/recurring agents'). Nothing is left to inference about routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.