Skip to main content
Glama

create-planner-task-message

create-planner-task-message
Destructive

Post a message to a Planner task's chat with optional @mentions to notify team members.

Instructions

[beta] Create a new plannerTaskChatMessage on a plannerTask.

šŸ’” TIP: Posts a message to a Planner task's chat (the modern 'task chat', not the legacy conversationThreadId comment). Microsoft is retiring the classic task comments experience and hiding it from the task (Planner 2026 update), so task chat is the current supported way to post per-task updates teammates will see, with @mentions. Body: { content: 'plain text or sanitized HTML', mentions?: [{ mentioned: 'user-id', position: 0, mentionType: 'user' }] } (mentions optional). No ETag/If-Match required. BETA Graph API: subject to change; delegated work/school accounts only — no application permissions, no personal Microsoft accounts, global cloud only (not GCC/DoD/21Vianet).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bodyYes
confirmNoFor 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.
plannerTaskIdYesValue for the 'plannerTaskId' path segment. Pass it under the name 'plannerTaskId', not as 'id'. Use the 'id' field of the planner task object as returned by Microsoft Graph.
includeHeadersNoInclude response headers (including ETag) in the response metadata
excludeResponseNoExclude the full response body and only return success or failure indication
Behavior4/5

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

The description discloses beta status, auth restrictions, and the mutation nature (consistent with destructiveHint=true). It explains the body format, notes that no ETag is required, and warns of API changes. However, it does not describe the return value or potential side effects on the task's chat state. Still, it adds significant context beyond 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 description is well-structured: a clear purpose statement, a tip section with usage guidance, then parameter details, and finally limitations. It is slightly verbose but remains focused and front-loaded. Each section serves a purpose.

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?

Given the complexity (beta API, nested objects, auth restrictions), the description covers most aspects: what the tool does, when to use it, auth constraints, body format, and that no ETag is required. Missing are the return value (though no output schema) and mention of the confirm parameter for destructive ops. Overall, it is fairly complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is high (80%). The description paraphrases the body structure and mentions required parameters, but adds little beyond what the schema already provides. The confirm parameter is not mentioned in the description, though it is in the schema. Overall, the description adds marginal value over the schema.

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 clearly states the verb ('Create'), the resource ('plannerTaskChatMessage on a plannerTask'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like list-planner-task-messages and delete-planner-task-message by specifying it's for creating a new message. It also contrasts with legacy comments, reinforcing its unique purpose.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides explicit guidance: it notes that task chat is the 'current supported way' and contrasts with the legacy comments experience. It also lists important usage constraints (delegated work/school accounts only, no personal accounts, global cloud only, beta API). However, it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives like 'list-planner-task-messages' or 'delete-planner-task-message' for when to use those instead.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Softeria/ms-365-mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server