msteams-personal-mcp

teams_edit_message

Edit one of your own Microsoft Teams messages by replacing its full text, keeping any quoted reply intact. Use only when you explicitly ask to change a sent message.

Instructions

Edit one of the signed-in user's own messages, replacing its text (visible to the chat as edited). Only when the user asked. Replies keep their quote.

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": {
      "conversationId": "<conversationId>",
      "messageId": "<messageId>",
      "text": "<text>"
    },
    "name": "teams_edit_message"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`text`	Yes	New full text; @[Name](mri) mentions supported
`messageId`	Yes
`conversationId`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.9.0Oct 23, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive write, but the description adds real context beyond them: the edit is visible to the chat as edited, and existing reply quotes are preserved. It also restricts editing to the user's own messages. It stops short of permission/failure behavior.

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?

Two tight sentences with the core action and scope front-loaded, and the caveats ('only when the user asked', 'replies keep their quote') appended without waste.

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?

For a 3-required-param mutation with no output schema and sparse schema coverage, the description covers ownership, visibility and mention support indirectly, but omits how to source the two ID parameters and what happens on stale/missing messages.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is only 33% – only 'text' is documented in the schema. The description adds only that text is replaced wholesale, and says nothing about messageId or conversationId (format, source, how to obtain them), so the ID parameters are undocumented in both places.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Edit ... messages, replacing its text') plus a scope constraint ('the signed-in user's own messages'). This clearly separates it from teams_send_message, teams_reply_to_message and teams_delete_message, though it doesn't name those siblings explicitly.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

'Only when the user asked' gives one explicit gating condition, which is useful. However, no alternatives are named (e.g. when to use reply/edit vs delete), so the agent must infer the routing from sibling names alone.

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