Resolve a OneDrive/SharePoint sharing link from an email to retrieve file metadata and list folder children.
Resolve a OneDrive/SharePoint sharing link (from mail) to file metadata + folder children.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| link | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return shape (metadata + folder children), but says nothing about permission requirements, behavior on an invalid/expired link, or whether the link must be a specific format — significant gaps for a resolver with no annotation coverage.
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?
One tight sentence with the action and outcome front-loaded and zero filler. Only a minor ambiguity (what 'children' means) keeps it from being ideal.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be fully spelled out, and the description does summarize them. Still, with 0% parameter coverage and no annotations, the agent lacks guidance on link format and failure/permission behavior for a tool whose whole job is resolving an opaque input.
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 0% and the single 'link' parameter has no format documentation. The description only adds a weak hint that the link originates 'from mail', which does not tell the agent whether a share URL, an encoded URL, or a raw path is expected.
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?
Specific verb+resource: 'Resolve a OneDrive/SharePoint sharing link ... to file metadata + folder children.' Clearly states the input and the output, distinguishing it from generic browse/download siblings. However it does not name which sibling to prefer over it.
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 parenthetical '(from mail)' hints at the trigger context (a link pasted/emailed), which implies when to reach for it. But there is no explicit when/when-not or comparison against od_browse, od_download, or get_resource, which cover adjacent OneDrive territory.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.