Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
outlook-mcp

outlook-mcp

by viartemev
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

create_draft

Compose an email draft to prepare messages for later review, editing, and sending.

Instructions

Create an email draft

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": {
      "kwargs": "<kwargs>"
    },
    "name": "create_draft"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
kwargsYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are present, and the description fails to disclose behavioral traits beyond the basic action. It does not mention what the draft entails (e.g., recipients, body) or any side effects, leaving the agent uninformed about critical behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence, which is concise. However, it is too brief to be useful, scoring an average as the brevity comes at the cost of 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?

Despite having an output schema (not detailed) and a complex domain (email drafts), the description provides no information on return values, how to populate content, or relation to other email tool actions, making it incomplete for effective use.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has a single required 'kwargs' parameter with no defined properties and 0% coverage. The description adds no explanation, so the agent cannot understand how to structure the parameter or what keys are expected, making it nearly unusable.

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 ('Create') and resource ('email draft'), which is specific. However, given sibling tools like 'send_draft' and 'create_event', it does not differentiate further, but it is still unambiguous.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'send_draft' or 'create_event'. The description lacks context for appropriate usage scenarios.

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