Skip to main content
Glama

microsoft_list_channel_messages

Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetch messages from a Microsoft Teams channel via the Lightbulb MCP connector. Use it to retrieve channel history and integrate conversation data into your workflows.

Instructions

Microsoft connector operation list_channel_messages (platform tool microsoft.list_channel_messages).

Routes only through the exact project/account governed connector authority.

Args: arguments: JSON string of arguments for the connector operation. project_id: Authenticated Project UUID. project_ref: Exact project correlation reference. connector_account_ref: Project-bound connector account alias. idempotency_key: Stable business-action identity. effect: Required and must be read; Spring verifies it. approval_ref: Approved platform task UUID when resuming a write.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
effectYes
argumentsNo{}
project_idNo
project_refNo
approval_refNo
idempotency_keyNo
connector_account_refNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed7 schema fields changedv0.1.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / approval_ref
      Added value: +{
      +  "anyOf": [
      +    {
      +      "type": "string"
      +    },
      +    {
      +      "type": "null"
      +    }
      +  ],
      +  "default": null,
      +  "title": "Approval Ref"
      +}
    • addedInput schema / properties / connector_account_ref
      Added value: +{
      +  "anyOf": [
      +    {
      +      "type": "string"
      +    },
      +    {
      +      "type": "null"
      +    }
      +  ],
      +  "default": null,
      +  "title": "Connector Account Ref"
      +}
    • addedInput schema / properties / effect
      Added value: +{
      +  "const": "read",
      +  "title": "Effect",
      +  "type": "string"
      +}
    • addedInput schema / properties / idempotency_key
      Added value: +{
      +  "anyOf": [
      +    {
      +      "type": "string"
      +    },
      +    {
      +      "type": "null"
      +    }
      +  ],
      +  "default": null,
      +  "title": "Idempotency Key"
      +}
    • addedInput schema / properties / project_id
      Added value: +{
      +  "anyOf": [
      +    {
      +      "type": "string"
      +    },
      +    {
      +      "type": "null"
      +    }
      +  ],
      +  "default": null,
      +  "title": "Project Id"
      +}
    • addedInput schema / properties / project_ref
      Added value: +{
      +  "anyOf": [
      +    {
      +      "type": "string"
      +    },
      +    {
      +      "type": "null"
      +    }
      +  ],
      +  "default": null,
      +  "title": "Project Ref"
      +}
    • addedInput schema / required
      Added value: +[
      +  "effect"
      +]
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the description's job is lighter. It usefully adds that `effect` must be 'read' and is verified by Spring, and that routing is restricted to the governed connector authority. The mention of 'resuming a write' in approval_ref is slightly confusing for a read-only tool but does not directly contradict the annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The parameter list is compact and there is little filler, with routing and effect constraints stated early. The main weakness is that the opening sentence mostly repeats the tool name instead of providing a semantic purpose, but the overall structure is efficient.

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

Completeness2/5

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

The description is not complete enough for an agent to invoke this correctly: it never states what a channel message is or that the operation reads messages from a specific channel, and it gives no indication of what must go inside `arguments` (e.g., team/channel identifiers). Despite the output schema and annotations helping, the missing purpose and operation-specific argument payload leave a significant gap.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does list all seven parameters with meaningful summaries: arguments as a JSON string, project_id as an authenticated UUID, idempotency_key as stable business identity, etc. However, it does not explain what operation-specific keys should appear inside the `arguments` JSON, which keeps it from being fully useful.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose2/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens by restating the tool name as 'Microsoft connector operation `list_channel_messages`', which is essentially tautological and does not say what the operation actually does. It fails to explain that this lists messages in a Microsoft Teams channel and does not differentiate it from siblings like microsoft_list_chat_messages or microsoft_list_team_channels.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as microsoft_list_chat_messages or microsoft_post_channel_message. The only added constraint, routing through a governed connector authority, is about execution context, not tool selection.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools