mcp-outlook-lite

outlook_check_availability

Check Outlook calendar availability for multiple users within a specified time range, returning free/busy slots to schedule meetings without conflicts.

Instructions

Check availability for users

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": {
      "schedules": "<schedules>",
      "startTime": "<startTime>",
      "endTime": "<endTime>"
    },
    "name": "outlook_check_availability"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`endTime`	Yes	End of the time range
`schedules`	Yes	List of email addresses to check
`startTime`	Yes	Start of the time range
`availabilityViewInterval`	No	Interval in minutes for availability view

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.0.0Sep 13, 2026

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

The description does not disclose behavioral traits like read-only nature, side effects, or any restrictions. With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but fails to convey any behavioral context beyond the basic action.

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 extremely concise (4 words), but it sacrifices necessary detail. While brevity is valued, it should front-load essential information; here it is too sparse to be maximally helpful.

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?

Given the complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description lacks completeness. It does not explain return values, behavior, or how to interpret results, leaving the agent underinformed.

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 coverage is 100%, so each parameter has a description in the schema. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, resulting in a baseline score of 3.

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 'Check availability for users' clearly states the action (check) and resource (availability for users). It is specific and distinguishable from sibling tools like outlook_check_calendar_permissions and outlook_find_meeting_times, though a bit vague on the context.

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 outlook_get_busy_times or outlook_find_meeting_times. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual cues.

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

Deploy Server