mcp-outlook-lite

outlook_create_folder

Create a new email folder in Microsoft Outlook, optionally inside a parent folder. Organize and sort your messages by adding folders at the root level or nesting them as needed.

Instructions

Create a new email folder

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": {
      "displayName": "<displayName>"
    },
    "name": "outlook_create_folder"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`displayName`	Yes	Name of the new folder
`parentFolderId`	No	ID of parent folder (optional, creates at root level if not specified)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.0.0Sep 13, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

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 only states the basic creation action, omitting critical details like error handling for duplicate folder names, permission requirements, or confirmation of success. The description adds no value beyond the obvious.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

A single sentence is concise and front-loaded. It could be slightly improved by mentioning the optional parent folder, but it remains efficient without unnecessary detail.

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 simple create operation with well-documented parameters, the description is minimally complete. However, it lacks information on the return value or success confirmation, and no output schema is provided, leaving some gaps for the agent.

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%: both parameters have clear descriptions in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline expectation.

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 'Create a new email folder' clearly states the verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like outlook_rename_folder or outlook_list_folders. However, it does not specify that it can create subfolders via the optional parentFolderId parameter, which is a minor oversight.

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 vs alternatives, such as when to create a folder at root level vs as a subfolder. There are no prerequisites or exclusions mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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

Deploy Server