copilot-outlook-connector

by torosent

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

TypeScript

Local

calendar_list_calendars

Read-only

List accessible calendars for a specified Microsoft account. Returns calendar details without creating or sharing.

Instructions

Discover this explicit account's accessible calendars. Unknown permissions and partial results remain explicit; no calendars are created or shared.

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": {
      "accountId": "<accountId>"
    },
    "name": "calendar_list_calendars"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`accountId`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 8, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description aligns with the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations by stating no creation or sharing occurs. It also proactively mentions that unknown permissions and partial results remain explicit, providing transparency about potential limitations.

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 concise, using two sentences without unnecessary jargon or repetition. It front-loads the primary purpose and adds relevant clarifications in the second sentence.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a simple list operation with one parameter and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It covers the tool's scope, non-mutating nature, and potential for partial results. It does not describe the return format, but that is not specified in the schema and is not critical for a listing tool.

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 only parameter, accountId, is self-explanatory by name, but the description does not add any additional meaning or clarify its format or scope. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description does not compensate, but the parameter's purpose is straightforward.

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 tool's function: discovering accessible calendars for a specified account. It also explicitly notes that no calendars are created or shared, distinguishing it from mutating calendar operations.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It is clear this tool is for reading/listing calendars, and the note about not creating or sharing implies when to avoid using it. However, it does not explicitly contrast with other read-only calendar tools like search_events, though the distinct purpose is evident.

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