Outlook Assistant

by titanzero

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

JavaScript

Local

authenticate

Authenticate with Microsoft Graph API to access Outlook data for email, calendar, and contacts management.

Instructions

Authenticate with Microsoft Graph API to access Outlook data

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": "authenticate"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`force`	No	Force re-authentication even if already authenticated

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Feb 13, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but doesn't describe how authentication works (e.g., OAuth flow, token storage, permissions required), what happens on success/failure, or whether it's idempotent. For an authentication tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 a single, efficient sentence that states the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the essential information.

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 an authentication tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the authentication mechanism, required permissions, token lifecycle, error conditions, or what successful authentication enables. Given the complexity of authentication flows, this description leaves significant gaps.

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 100% with one parameter fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter information beyond what's already in the schema. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3 even without additional param details in the description.

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 clearly states the action ('Authenticate') and target ('Microsoft Graph API to access Outlook data'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this from the sibling 'check-auth-status' tool, which appears to verify authentication status rather than perform authentication.

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. It doesn't mention when authentication is required (e.g., before other operations), when to use 'force' parameter, or how it relates to 'check-auth-status'. There's only implied usage through the tool's name.

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