msteams-personal-mcp

teams_login

Start Microsoft Teams personal sign-in with a device code: open the returned URL, enter the code, and approve; then check status to complete authentication.

Instructions

Sign in to Microsoft Teams personal (teams.live.com) with a device code. Returns a code and URL: the USER must open the URL, enter the code and approve. Sign-in completes in the background; check with teams_status. Pass force=true to discard the saved sign-in and start over.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "teams_login"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`force`	No	Discard saved sign-in first

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.9.0Oct 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden well: it discloses that sign-in is out-of-band (the USER must open the URL and approve), that completion is asynchronous ('completes in the background'), and that state persists unless force is set. It stops short of stating device-code expiry or what happens on a failed/abandoned flow, which is the one remaining behavioral gap.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with purpose and the required user action, then the follow-up call and the parameter override. No redundant restatement of the tool name or filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by naming the return value ('a code and URL'). Given one optional parameter and a clear two-step flow, an agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly and knows how to confirm success.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description goes beyond the schema's terse 'Discard saved sign-in first' by clarifying the consequence is starting over. That added meaning justifies a step above baseline for a single well-documented parameter.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Sign in to Microsoft Teams personal (teams.live.com)') plus the concrete mechanism (device code), which immediately separates it from siblings like teams_status and teams_logout. An agent can identify the tool without opening the schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly tells the caller what happens next ('check with teams_status') and gives the condition for the only parameter ('Pass force=true to discard the saved sign-in and start over'). This is exactly the when-to-use-and-what-next guidance an agent needs for an auth flow.

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