Sends messages to Microsoft Teams chats or channels, and replies within channel threads by using the thread's root post ID.
Send a message to a chat or channel; in channels pass replyToMessageId (the thread's root post id) to reply in that thread
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| kind | No | channel | |
| text | Yes | Message text (markdown as supported by Teams) | |
| conversationId | Yes | Conversation ID from list_chats, list_channels or start_chat | |
| replyToMessageId | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It explains thread-reply behavior, but it does not mention permissions, authentication requirements, rate limits, side effects, or what the tool returns after sending.
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 description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the primary action first and then adds the key channel-thread nuance.
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?
For a simple send-message tool, the description covers the core action and the non-obvious replyToMessageId behavior. However, with no annotations or output schema, it still leaves out behavioral details such as authentication requirements and response behavior.
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%, and the description adds important meaning for replyToMessageId by explaining that it should be the thread's root post id. It does not explain the kind parameter beyond the enum/default already in the schema, and conversationId meaning is mostly left to the schema description.
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 and resource: sending a message to a chat or channel. It also clarifies channel thread replies via replyToMessageId. The action is clear and effectively unique among the siblings, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with alternatives such as start_chat or upload_file.
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 gives one useful conditional guideline: in channels, pass replyToMessageId to reply in a thread. However, it does not explain when to use this tool versus other sibling tools or describe prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.