onedrive_get_file_contentDownload and return the text content of a OneDrive (Microsoft 365) file by its item id. Best for plain-text, Markdown, and CSV files; binary formats (Office docs, PDFs, images) will return unreadable bytes. Content is capped at ~100,000 characters and flagged when truncated.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The OneDrive drive-item id of the file to read. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "id": "01EJDVJMB23ABCD"
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds critical behavioral traits: content is capped at ~100,000 characters and flagged when truncated; binary formats return unreadable bytes. This provides complete transparency beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, no redundancy. Every word adds value: usage context, format warnings, and size limit. Highly efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given a single required parameter and no output schema, the description fully covers input (id), output behavior (text content, truncation, binary issues), and limitations. No gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 100% coverage with one parameter 'id' described as 'The OneDrive drive-item id of the file to read.' The description repeats 'by its item id' but adds no new semantics. Baseline 3 applies as schema already fully documents the parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool downloads and returns text content of a OneDrive file by item id, specifying compatible formats (plain-text, Markdown, CSV) and distinguishing from binary files. This differentiates it from siblings like onedrive_get_file (metadata) and onedrive_list_files (list).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly indicates best use cases (plain-text files) and warns against binary formats. It also notes content cap and truncation flag, enabling informed selection. While it doesn't name sibling alternatives, the guidance is sufficient for correct usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.