outlook-mcp

by viartemev

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Remote

send_draft

Send a draft email to its recipients, finalizing the message.

Instructions

Send a draft email

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": "send_draft"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`kwargs`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0May 31, 2026

TDQS

C2.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It fails to mention side effects like whether the draft is deleted after sending, permission requirements, or any irreversible changes. The description only states the action without depth.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

While the description is short, it is under-specified rather than concise. It lacks critical details that could be added without increasing length significantly. Every sentence should earn its place, but this one does not provide enough value.

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

Completeness1/5

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

Given the tool's complexity (sending an email with side effects), the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain return values, error states, or behavior changes. Even with an output schema, the description should provide context about the sending process.

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 parameter 'kwargs' with no description (0% coverage), and the description adds no information about what 'kwargs' should contain. This leaves the agent completely uninformed about required arguments.

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 'Send a draft email' clearly states the verb and resource, indicating the action of sending an email that was previously drafted. It distinguishes from siblings like 'send_email' which sends a new email, though it could be more explicit about operating on an existing draft.

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_email' or 'create_draft'. It does not mention prerequisites like having a draft to send, which would help agents decide appropriately.

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