Skip to main content
Glama
mpalermiti

outlook-mcp

by mpalermiti
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

outlook_upload_task_attachment

Attach a local file of up to 20 MiB to an existing To Do task by uploading it as inline base64, so task details include the supporting document.

Instructions

Attach a local file to a To Do task via inline base64 POST (1 byte – 20 MiB).

file_path resolves inside the configured attachments directory. Larger files are refused up front: Graph caps the request body at 30 MB and base64 inflates the file 4/3, so 20 MiB is the honest ceiling.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
list_idNo
task_idYes
file_pathYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed7 schema fields changedv1.30.2
    • removedInput schema / properties / file_path / title
      Removed value: -"File Path"
    • removedInput schema / properties / list_id / anyOf
      Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]
    • removedInput schema / properties / list_id / default
      Removed value: -null
    • removedInput schema / properties / list_id / title
      Removed value: -"List Id"
    • addedInput schema / properties / list_id / type
      Added value: +"string"
    • removedInput schema / properties / task_id / title
      Removed value: -"Task Id"
    • removedInput schema / title
      Removed value: -"outlook_upload_task_attachmentArguments"
  2. Addedv1.22.1

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds real value beyond that: base64 inline upload, a hard 20 MiB ceiling with the reasoning (30 MB Graph body cap, 4/3 inflation), and up-front refusal rather than failure mid-request. It still leaves out permission requirements and what a successful response contains.

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?

Front-loads the action, then the size contract, then the rationale for the ceiling. Every sentence earns its place; no filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description should say what comes back (attachment id/metadata) and how list_id interacts with task_id. It covers the upload mechanics and limits well but leaves the agent guessing on the response shape and one of three parameters.

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%, so the description carries the burden, and it explains only file_path (resolved inside the configured attachments directory). task_id and the optional list_id are left entirely undocumented, so it only partially compensates for the empty schema.

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?

States a specific verb ('Attach') plus resource ('a local file to a To Do task') and the mechanism (inline base64 POST), which cleanly separates it from the sibling attach tools (outlook_attach_to_draft, outlook_attach_to_event) by target resource alone.

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?

Usage is only implied: the 20 MiB ceiling tells the agent when this tool will refuse, but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer it over the attachments alternatives or what prerequisites (task existence, scope) are required.

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