Skip to main content
Glama
mpalermiti

outlook-mcp

by mpalermiti
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

outlook_send_message

Immediately send an email with specified recipients, subject, body, and optional settings like reply-to, importance, and read receipt.

Instructions

Send an email immediately, no human review.

For human-review workflows use outlook_create_draft + outlook_send_draft instead. For replying to an existing message use outlook_reply; for calendar invites use outlook_rsvp. Pass reply_to to route recipient replies to a different address (e.g. a shared team alias).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ccNo
toYes
bccNo
bodyYes
is_htmlNo
subjectYes
reply_toNo
importanceNonormal
request_read_receiptNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.19.0
    • removedInput schema / properties / sensitivity
      Removed value: -{
-  "default": "normal",
-  "title": "Sensitivity",
-  "type": "string"
-}
  2. Addedv1.14.0
  3. Removedv1.12.0
  4. First observedv1.11.0

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The description mentions the immediate, no-human-review nature of sending, which is an important behavioral note. However, it does not disclose other side effects such as external recipient delivery, inability to unsend, or read-receipt behavior. Annotations provide only minimal non-readOnly/non-destructive flags.

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?

The description is brief and focused. Every sentence adds useful information: the core action, the alternative workflows, and the reply_to parameter behavior.

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?

The description covers the primary action, differentiates from closely related tools, and explains a non-obvious parameter. It could be slightly more complete by mentioning attachment handling or the send_with_attachments sibling, but it is generally sufficient for typical use.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description only explains reply_to. Required parameters like to, subject, and body are left entirely to inference, and optional parameters such as importance, is_html, and request_read_receipt are not described at all.

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 clearly states the action: 'Send an email immediately, no human review.' It also distinguishes this tool from related alternatives by naming outlook_create_draft + outlook_send_draft, outlook_reply, and outlook_rsvp.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description gives explicit guidance on when to avoid this tool and use drafts/reply/RSVP instead, and it notes the special reply_to behavior. This makes the appropriate use case clear.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools