Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Outlook Email MCP Server

Outlook Email MCP Server

by nhatho0001
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

list_emails

Retrieve a list of emails from a specified Outlook folder. Supports inbox, drafts, sent, deleted, junk, archive, and custom folders with a configurable limit (1-50).

Instructions

Liệt kê email trong một folder.

Args: folder: Tên folder (inbox, drafts, sent, deleted, junk, archive) hoặc tên tùy chỉnh. limit: Số lượng email tối đa (1-50).

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_emails"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNo
folderNoinbox

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It only states the basic action without disclosing side effects (e.g., marking as read), authentication needs, or pagination behavior. The existence of an output schema is noted but not leveraged in the description.

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 extremely concise: two lines for the main action, followed by a structured args list. Every sentence adds value, and the main purpose is front-loaded.

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?

The description is adequate for a simple tool with non-required parameters and an existing output schema. However, it lacks behavioral transparency and usage guidance, which are gaps given the complexity of the sibling toolset.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description fully defines both parameters: folder with examples (inbox, drafts, etc.) and limit with a range (1-50). This adds critical meaning beyond the raw 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?

The description clearly states 'Liệt kê email trong một folder' (List emails in a folder), specifying the resource (emails) and action (list). It distinguishes from siblings like search_emails (search) and read_email (read single) by focusing on listing all emails in a folder.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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 like search_emails or read_email. There is no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or when not to use it.

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