Retrieve messages from a Microsoft Teams channel or chat conversation by conversation ID, with pagination and limits, to review or process team discussions.
List messages of a channel or chat conversation
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| kind | No | channel | |
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | Pagination cursor from previous result | |
| conversationId | Yes | Channel or chat conversation ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and provides almost nothing: no ordering, read-only nature, permission requirements, pagination behavior, or result shape are disclosed. The presence of a cursor parameter suggests pagination, but the description never explains it.
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?
The single sentence is front-loaded and free of waste, which is structurally good. However, it is under-specified for a tool with pagination and filtering parameters, so the brevity comes at the cost of completeness rather than being genuinely concise.
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?
There are no annotations, no output schema, and only 50% schema description coverage, so the description needs to do heavy lifting. It does not explain pagination, default ordering, limits, or what a returned message contains, leaving meaningful gaps for correct invocation.
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 coverage is 50%, but the description only echoes the 'channel or chat conversation' scope covered by the schema. It adds no meaning for 'limit', 'cursor', or the kind enum, and does not compensate for the undocumented half of the parameters.
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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('messages') scoped to a channel or chat conversation, so the core operation is unambiguous. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling 'search_messages', which could also return messages, leaving some ambiguity about which one to pick.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this instead of 'search_messages', 'list_chats', or 'list_channels'. The reader must infer that this is for enumerating messages in a known conversation, but the description never says so explicitly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.