msteams-personal-mcp

teams_status

Check whether a personal Microsoft Teams account is signed in and whether a device-code sign-in is still pending before reading chats or sending messages.

Instructions

Show whether Teams personal is signed in and whether a device-code sign-in is pending.

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_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.9.0Oct 23, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does correctly convey that this is a state-reporting query rather than a mutation. However, it does not confirm read-only semantics explicitly, nor does it say whether the call triggers network traffic, how quickly the pending state resolves, or what shape the answer takes.

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?

A single sentence with no filler, and the primary condition (signed in) is placed before the secondary one (device-code pending). Nothing could be trimmed without losing meaning.

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 zero-param status read with no output schema, the description adequately covers what the agent gets back: signed-in state plus pending device-code state. The only shortfall is that it doesn't spell out the auth-flow role relative to teams_login, which matters for a tool in a login sequence.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify beyond what the empty schema already shows. Baseline 4 applies for a parameterless tool.

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 ('Show') and two specific pieces of state (signed-in status, pending device-code sign-in). This is clearly distinct from sibling operations like teams_login, teams_logout, or the chat/message tools. It stops short of naming which sibling it complements, but the resource is unmistakable.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no explicit guidance on when to call this versus teams_login or teams_logout. The mention of a 'pending device-code sign-in' hints that this is the polling partner to teams_login, but the agent must infer that flow itself. No exclusions or sequencing advice are given.

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