msteams-personal-mcp

teams_send_message

Sends a message to a Teams personal conversation as the signed-in user, supporting @mentions and formatted text, when the user explicitly requests it.

Instructions

SEND a message to a Teams personal conversation as the signed-in user. Only call when the user explicitly asked to send this exact text. To @mention someone (they get notified), write @Display Name using the "mentionAs" value from teams_get_chat_members. mentionEveryone=true mentions every member of a group (up to 25): only when the user asked to notify everyone.

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>",
      "text": "<text>"
    },
    "name": "teams_send_message"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`text`	Yes	Blank lines separate paragraphs; lines starting with "- " become a bulleted list; bold, `code` and https:// links are formatted; @[Name](mri) becomes a mention
`conversationId`	Yes
`mentionEveryone`	No	Mention all other group members (notifies each of them)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.9.0Oct 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (not read-only, open world, non-destructive), yet the description adds real value: it acts as the signed-in user, requires explicit user intent, and discloses the 25-member cap on mentionEveryone plus the notification behavior of @mentions. Minor omission: no mention of rate limits or that mentions notify recipients individually.

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 sentences, each carrying distinct information: the action, the invocation guardrail, and the mention syntax/rules. The action is front-loaded and nothing is redundant with the schema.

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 3-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers intent guardrails, mention formatting, and limits. The remaining gap is where conversationId comes from (teams_find_chat or teams_list_chats), which the agent must discover from sibling names.

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 67%, and the description compensates well: it explains that the mri in @[Display Name](mri) must come from teams_get_chat_members' mentionAs value, and that mentionEveryone is capped at 25 group members. conversationId remains unexplained in both description and schema (its schema entry has no description), so the parameter sourcing is incomplete.

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 message to a Teams personal conversation as the signed-in user' gives a concrete verb, resource, and scope (personal conversation, acting identity). It implicitly separates itself from teams_reply_to_message and group tools, but never names those siblings explicitly, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

The description states a firm precondition ('Only call when the user explicitly asked to send this exact text') and conditions on mentionEveryone ('only when the user asked to notify everyone'). It does not route to alternatives such as teams_reply_to_message for threaded replies, which is the one clear gap.

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