Skip to main content
Glama
mpalermiti

outlook-mcp

by mpalermiti
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

outlook_update_contact

Update an existing Outlook contact by changing only the fields you provide. Send any address as a complete replacement, so include every part you want to keep.

Instructions

Update an existing contact (partial patch — only provided fields change).

An address takes the shape outlook_get_contact returns — any subset of {"street", "city", "state", "postal_code", "country_or_region"} — and REPLACES that whole address, so pass back every part you want to keep. Omit it to leave it untouched.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
emailNo
phoneNo
last_nameNo
contact_idYes
first_nameNo
home_addressNo
other_addressNo
business_addressNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv1.22.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / business_address
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "additionalProperties": true,
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Business Address"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / home_address
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "additionalProperties": true,
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Home Address"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / other_address
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "additionalProperties": true,
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Other Address"
+}
  2. First observedv1.11.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description goes beyond that with a genuinely important behavioral warning: an address argument REPLACES the whole address object, so omitted parts are lost, and omitting the parameter entirely leaves it untouched. That kind of destructive-by-omission risk is exactly the context annotations don't carry.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two tight sentences with the core contract front-loaded and the address gotcha called out in caps for emphasis. No filler, though the address explanation runs slightly long relative to the total content.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For an 8-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and minimal annotations, the description covers only the address subset. It omits what happens with an invalid contact_id, whether required fields can be nulled, and the semantics of the scalar fields, leaving real gaps an agent would need filled.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% across 8 parameters, so the description must compensate and only partly does. It fully documents the three address parameters (shape and replace-vs-omit semantics) but says nothing about email, phone, first_name, or last_name, nor explains the required contact_id.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Update an existing contact') and immediately qualifies it with partial-patch semantics, so an agent knows this is a mutation tool, not a create/delete/get. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling update_* tools, but the resource is unambiguous from name and text.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description explains the invocation contract (omit a field to leave it untouched) which is genuinely useful, but it never states when to reach for this tool versus alternatives like outlook_create_contact, outlook_get_contact, or outlook_delete_contact. Usage is implied by the patch semantics rather than laid out.

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