msteams-personal-mcp

teams_reply_to_message

Sends a Teams reply that quotes a specific message, enabling in-thread responses when explicitly requested. Supports @mentions in the reply text.

Instructions

SEND a reply that quotes a specific message (shows as a Teams reply). Only when the user explicitly asked to reply with this text. Supports @Name mentions like teams_send_message.

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_reply_to_message"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`text`	Yes
`messageId`	Yes	The message being replied to
`conversationId`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.9.0Oct 23, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations establish this as a non-destructive open-world write, and the description adds genuinely new context: the result renders as a quoted Teams reply and the text supports @[Name](mri) mention markup, referencing teams_send_message for syntax parity. It does not cover failure modes (e.g., invalid messageId or conversationId), but the annotation coverage lowers that burden.

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 sentences with the action and its rendering behavior front-loaded and the usage constraint immediately after; every clause carries information and nothing is padded.

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 write with no output schema, the description covers the main risks (when to use, mention formatting) but omits what the tool returns, whether conversationId denotes a chat or channel, and how it behaves if messageId is stale. Minimum viable rather than complete.

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 only 33%; messageId is documented as "the message being replied to" and the description implies the same, while conversationId and text have no schema descriptions. The description partially compensates by explaining the @[Name](mri) mention syntax that text accepts, but says nothing about the conversationId/messageId relationship.

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?

"SEND a reply that quotes a specific message (shows as a Teams reply)" gives a specific verb and resource and distinguishes the operation from a top-level post by its quoting behavior. It does not explicitly contrast with teams_send_message as the non-reply alternative, leaving that distinction partly implicit.

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?

"Only when the user explicitly asked to reply with this text" is an explicit gate on when to use the tool, which is strong guidance for a mutation that posts on the user's behalf. It stops short of naming when to prefer teams_send_message instead of replying.

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