ms-365-mcp-server

create-onenote-section

create-onenote-section

Destructive

Create a new OneNote section in a specified notebook by providing the notebook ID and a display name for the section.

Instructions

Create a new onenoteSection in the specified notebook.

💡 TIP: Creates a new section in a notebook. Body: { displayName: 'Section Name' }.

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": {
      "body": "<body>",
      "notebookId": "<notebookId>"
    },
    "name": "create-onenote-section"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`body`	Yes
`confirm`	No	For destructive operations when the confirm gate is enabled (MS365_MCP_REQUIRE_CONFIRM=true; off by default). Set to true only after the user has explicitly approved this action. When the gate is on, calls without confirm: true return { error: "confirmation_required" } without touching user data.
`notebookId`	Yes	Value for the 'notebookId' path segment. Pass it under the name 'notebookId', not as 'id'. Use the 'id' field of the notebook object as returned by Microsoft Graph.
`includeHeaders`	No	Include response headers (including ETag) in the response metadata
`excludeResponse`	No	Exclude the full response body and only return success or failure indication

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.0.0-developmentAug 24, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint: true and readOnlyHint: false, so the description's 'Create' is consistent. It adds no extra behavioral context beyond the annotation—no mention of side effects, confirmation requirements, or error conditions. The body example is more about parameters than behavior, so the description adds minimal value beyond what annotations convey.

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 short but redundant: the first sentence already states the purpose, and the tip repeats it ('Creates a new section in a notebook'). The body example is useful, but the tip adds no new information. The structure is acceptable but not tight.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a simple create operation with a standard destructive annotation and 80% schema coverage, the description covers the essential intent and parameters. It omits details like return value or confirmation behavior, but these are captured in the schema and annotations, so the description is adequately complete.

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 80%, so baseline is 3. The description adds a concrete example for the required body parameter (displayName) and implies the notebookId is required via 'specified notebook'. This helps the agent construct valid calls, going slightly beyond what the schema provides.

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?

The description states a specific verb ('Create'), a specific resource ('onenoteSection'), and the scope ('in the specified notebook'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like create-onenote-section-page and create-onenote-notebook. The added body example reinforces the action.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives. It does not mention any conditions, exclusions, or relationship to sibling tools. With over 200 sibling tools, this is a significant omission.

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

Deploy Server