Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Microsoft Graph MCP Server

Microsoft Graph MCP Server

by oliverhruby
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

send_mail

Send email messages through Microsoft 365 by specifying semicolon-separated recipients, a subject, and a body. Optional CC recipients and importance let you tailor delivery.

Instructions

Send email. to_recipients/cc_recipients: semicolon-separated email addresses.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "to_recipients": "<to_recipients>",
      "subject": "<subject>",
      "body": "<body>"
    },
    "name": "send_mail"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bodyYes
subjectYes
body_typeNoHTML
importanceNo
cc_recipientsNo
to_recipientsYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the action itself and the recipient separator format. It does not mention side effects, permission requirements, failure modes, or how body_type/importance behave.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded, with no filler. The recipient format note is directly useful, though the overall terseness leaves some semantic gaps.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a six-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, this description is too thin. It does not clarify the HTML body_type default, importance values, or expected behavior, leaving an agent with only the raw schema to infer usage.

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?

The description adds useful meaning for to_recipients and cc_recipients by specifying semicolon-separated email addresses. However, schema description coverage is 0%, and no explanation is given for body_type, importance, or the expected format of subject and body.

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?

The description states a clear verb and resource: 'Send email.' This distinguishes it from most sibling tools, though it could more explicitly differentiate itself from send_draft, reply_to_message, and forward_message.

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 given about when to use send_mail versus related mail tools such as send_draft, reply_to_message, or forward_message. The description does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or alternatives.

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