ms_profileFetch a Microsoft 365 user profile via Graph, optionally including manager, direct reports, groups, or photo. Use it to retrieve current user details from any MCP client.
Fetch the user's Microsoft 365 profile. Optionally include manager, reports, groups, or photo.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| include | No | Additional data to include: "manager", "reports", "groups", "photo" |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and non-destructive behavior, so the description carries a reduced burden. However, it adds no behavioral context at all beyond restating that this is a fetch: no auth/permission notes, no rate-limit or pagination hints, and no indication of what the profile payload contains.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the scope-expansion option. Nothing is padded or repetitive.
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 zero-required-parameter, read-only call with rich annotations, the description covers the essentials. With no output schema present, it leaves what fields the profile actually returns (and what each include value adds) entirely unspecified, which is a modest gap.
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 description coverage is 100% and the single parameter already enumerates "manager", "reports", "groups", "photo" in its own description. The description merely repeats that same list, adding no syntax or default-behavior detail, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb ("Fetch") and resource ("Microsoft 365 profile"), so the operation is unambiguous. It does not differentiate itself from the sibling ms_people, which is the likely overlap an agent would hesitate between.
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?
"Fetch the user's Microsoft 365 profile" implies the use case, and "Optionally include..." tells the agent it can widen scope to sub-resources. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no sibling (e.g. ms_people) is named as an alternative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.