msteams-personal-mcp

teams_rename_group

Renames a Microsoft Teams group chat so all participants see the updated name; use only when the user explicitly requests a chat name change.

Instructions

RENAME a group chat (everyone sees the new name). Only when the user asked.

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>",
      "topic": "<topic>"
    },
    "name": "teams_rename_group"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`topic`	Yes
`conversationId`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.9.0Oct 23, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already disclose readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the description's main addition is the visibility impact: the rename is seen by everyone in the chat. That is meaningful side-effect context beyond structured fields. It omits permission requirements and error behavior, keeping it below a 5.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Two short sentences with the critical impact and the usage guard front-loaded; nothing is wasted. It verges on too terse given the missing parameter detail, but structurally it is clean.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and 0% schema coverage, the definition should explain how to identify the conversation and what happens on failure or permission denial. Those gaps are real, though annotations plus the visibility note cover the safety profile adequately.

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 0% for both parameters, so the description must compensate. 'New name' loosely maps to topic, but there is no guidance on conversationId format (what a Teams conversation ID looks like) or the 200-character limit on topic. The reader learns almost nothing the schema doesn't already structurally convey.

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 (RENAME) and resource (group chat) with scope (everyone sees the new name). No sibling does renaming, so it is distinguishable by verb alone, though it never explicitly names an alternative or contrast.

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 a gating condition for use, which is real guidance beyond the name. However, it doesn't specify prerequisites (does the agent need to own the chat?), nor name any alternative path, so selection context is only implied.

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