Skip to main content
Glama
RPasquale

lightbulb-mcp

by RPasquale
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

teams_post_chat_message

DestructiveIdempotent

Post a chat message to Microsoft Teams via your project's authorized connector account, ensuring routing through the correct project and governed authority.

Instructions

Teams connector operation post_chat_message (platform tool teams.post_chat_message).

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: Claimed read or write effect; Spring verifies it. approval_ref: Approved platform task UUID when resuming a write.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
effectNo
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. Changed6 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: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Effect"
+}
    • 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"
+}
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate this is a mutating/destructive and idempotent tool. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond those hints: the 'effect' field is a claimed read/write effect verified by Spring, and 'approval_ref' is required when resuming a write. The governed-routing constraint also clarifies execution context. No contradiction with 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 description is compact and well-structured with a clear Args list. The first sentence is somewhat redundant with the name, but the routing note and parameter explanations are purposeful. Overall, it is economical without omitting the governance-related details it chooses to include.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The description explains the wrapper's governance, idempotency, effect, and approval fields, and an output schema is present, so return-value documentation is not needed. Yet it fails to describe what the actual Teams post_chat_message payload should contain or when to prefer this over sibling Teams/Microsoft tools. An agent could understand the wrapper mechanics but not confidently construct the underlying chat message call.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the full burden, and it does provide one-line semantics for all seven parameters. It clarifies that arguments is a JSON string, project_id is the authenticated UUID, connector_account_ref is the bound alias, and effect is verified by Spring. However, the actual structure of the underlying Teams operation arguments is left unspecified.

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 largely restates the tool name: 'Teams connector operation post_chat_message' adds no real action or outcome beyond the name itself. The routing constraint is useful context, but the core purpose—sending a chat message in Microsoft Teams—is never stated. It also does not differentiate this from closely related siblings like teams_post_channel_message or microsoft_post_chat_message.

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, nor any exclusions or prerequisites beyond an implied governed authority. The phrase 'Routes only through the exact project/account governed connector authority' hints at constraints, but it does not explain when an agent should pick this tool over sibling posting tools.

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