outpost

mail_send

Sends an email through Outlook with subject, body, and recipient. Supports optional CC for additional recipients.

Instructions

Send an email via Outlook.

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": "<to>",
      "subject": "<subject>",
      "body": "<body>"
    },
    "name": "mail_send"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`to`	Yes	Recipient email address (comma-separated for multiple)
`subject`	Yes	Email subject
`body`	Yes	Email body text
`cc`	No	CC recipients (comma-separated, optional)

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.2May 29, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It simply says 'Send an email' with no details on authentication, side effects, or handling of large attachments. The minimal statement adds little transparency.

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 a single, concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized for a simple action, though it could be slightly more detailed without losing conciseness.

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?

Given the tool has an output schema (not shown), the description does not need to explain return values. However, it lacks details on account selection, attachment handling, or rate limits, making it minimally complete for a simple send operation.

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?

The input schema covers all 4 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description does not add any additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 via Outlook.' It uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from other mail-related tools like mail_list or mail_reply.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like mail_reply for replying to existing emails. There is no mention of context or exclusions.

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