Local MCP

Teams Send Message

teams_send_message

Sends a text message to a Microsoft Teams chat as a connected Microsoft 365 work or school account (connect_m365_account), through Microsoft 365. The chat_id MUST come from teams_list_chats of the same account — never fabricate ids. This is a write operation: the first call returns a preview, the second call (with confirm=true) actually sends. sent:true means Microsoft accepted the message; teams_search_messages reads Microsoft's search index, which can lag behind a send, so a zero-result search right after sending is NOT evidence the send failed.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`text`	Yes	Plain-text message body. Max 28000 chars. No formatting / mentions / attachments.
`account`	No	Which connected Microsoft 365 account to use: its email (UPN), its id from list_m365_accounts, or its display name when unique. Leave it out to use the default account.
`chat_id`	Yes	Chat id from teams_list_chats (e.g. '19:<uuid>_<uuid>@unq.gbl.spaces' for 1:1, '19:<id>@thread.v2' for a group)
`confirm`	No	Must be true to actually send. Without it, returns a preview without making any network call.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedOct 5, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / account

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Which connected Microsoft 365 account to use: its email (UPN), its id from list_m365_accounts, or its display name when unique. Leave it out to use the default account.",
+  "type": "string"
+}

changedInput schema / properties / chat_id / description

Previous value: -"Thread id from teams_list_chats (e.g. '19:<uuid>_<uuid>@unq.gbl.spaces' for 1:1, '19:<uuid>@thread.tacv2' for group)"New value: +"Chat id from teams_list_chats (e.g. '19:<uuid>_<uuid>@unq.gbl.spaces' for 1:1, '19:<id>@thread.v2' for a group)"

changedInput schema / properties / text / description

Previous value: -"Plain-text message body. Max 28000 chars. No formatting / mentions / attachments in v1."New value: +"Plain-text message body. Max 28000 chars. No formatting / mentions / attachments."

First observedJun 30, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the safety annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), it discloses the two-step preview/confirm write flow, that sent:true means Microsoft accepted the message, and that the search index can lag behind a send so a zero-result search is not proof of failure. That is exactly the operational context an agent needs and cannot get from annotations.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and account scope, then prerequisites, then the confirm flow, then the search-lag caveat. Every sentence carries distinct information and none is redundant with the schema or annotations.

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

Completeness5/5

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

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the description covers the remaining gaps: account selection, id provenance, the two-step send confirmation, and result interpretation. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds a genuine constraint not present in the schema: chat_id MUST originate from teams_list_chats and must never be fabricated, plus it reinforces the confirm=true semantics. It does not add format detail for text or account beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb (sends) and resource (text message to a Microsoft Teams chat), and scopes it to a connected Microsoft 365 work/school account. The chat_id provenance requirement implicitly separates it from teams_send_channel_message, so an agent can route correctly without opening a schema.

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?

Gives clear preconditions (chat_id must come from teams_list_chats of the same account; account selection via connect_m365_account) and clarifies the search-lag relationship with teams_search_messages. It never explicitly names teams_send_channel_message as the alternative for channel posts, so the chat-vs-channel exclusion is left to inference.

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

All Local MCP tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.