msteams-personal-mcp

teams_create_group_chat

Creates a new Microsoft Teams group chat from specified member IDs only when requested; confirm the group name and member list first.

Instructions

CREATE a new group chat with the given members (Teams ids from teams_get_chat_members). Only when the user asked; confirm the member list and name first.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "members": "<members>"
    },
    "name": "teams_create_group_chat"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`topic`	No	Group name
`members`	Yes	Teams ids of the other members, e.g. "8:live:.cid.…"

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.9.0Oct 23, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already specify this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, open-world operation. The description adds useful operational context beyond annotations: it requires user intent and a confirmation step before creating the chat. It still does not describe return behavior or edge cases such as duplicate chats.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is two compact sentences with the core action front-loaded, followed by the key precondition. Every clause carries useful information and there is no wasted text.

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?

For a simple two-parameter creation tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the description is nearly complete: it covers purpose, member source, and required confirmation. A minor gap is that it does not say what the tool returns, which could matter because there is no output schema.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds provenance for members by naming teams_get_chat_members, but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description gives a specific verb and resource: creating a new group chat with given members. It also points to teams_get_chat_members as the source of member IDs, which helps distinguish it from sibling read/action tools, though it does not explicitly contrast with other group-management siblings.

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?

It states a clear usage condition: only when the user asked, and requires confirming the member list and name first. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to know when to invoke it.

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