Outlook Assistant

by titanzero

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

JavaScript

Local

list-emails

Retrieve recent emails from your Outlook inbox or specified folders to review messages and manage correspondence.

Instructions

Lists recent emails from your inbox

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

Name	Required	Description	Default
`folder`	No	Email folder to list (e.g., 'inbox', 'sent', 'drafts', default: 'inbox')
`count`	No	Number of emails to retrieve (default: 10, max: 500). Pagination is handled automatically.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Feb 13, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

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 mentions 'recent emails' but doesn't specify what 'recent' means (timeframe, sorting), whether it's read-only, if it requires authentication, or how pagination works. The schema mentions pagination, but the description doesn't elaborate on this behavior.

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 communicates the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple listing tool and gets straight to the point.

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?

For a read operation with 2 well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks important context about authentication requirements, result format, and how 'recent' is defined, which would help the agent use the tool more effectively.

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%, so the schema fully documents both parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema descriptions, meeting the baseline expectation when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Lists') and target resource ('recent emails from your inbox'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It specifies 'recent' which adds useful temporal context, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search-emails' or 'read-email'.

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 'search-emails' or 'read-email'. It mentions 'recent emails' but doesn't clarify if this is for quick overviews versus comprehensive searches, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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