placetel_import_microsoft_teams_userImport a Microsoft Teams user into Placetel by linking the required SIP user ID and Microsoft UUID.
Import user. (POST /microsoft_teams/users)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ms_uuid | Yes | Body field ms_uuid (required). | |
| sip_user_id | Yes | Body field sip_user_id (required). | |
| response_format | No | Output format: 'markdown' (human-readable, default) or 'json' (machine-readable). | markdown |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond them: it does not say whether re-importing the same user errors or overwrites, whether an existing mapping is replaced, or what happens to data on conflict — exactly the behavioral detail a non-idempotent write needs.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
It is short and has no padding, but that is under-specification rather than economy. The bare verb phrase is front-loaded, yet the only substantive content is the endpoint in parentheses, which does little work for an agent.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a non-idempotent mutation that links a Microsoft Teams identity to a Placatel SIP user, with no output schema to explain results, the description leaves the agent without prerequisites, side effects, or success/failure semantics. It is not complete enough to call safely without opening the schema and guessing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with all three parameters documented, so the schema carries parameter meaning. The description contributes nothing about ms_uuid (Teams user UUID) or sip_user_id (which SIP user to bind), but with full schema coverage the baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
"Import user" restates the tool name and title verbatim; the only extra information is the endpoint path "(POST /microsoft_teams/users)", which hints at resource scope but never explains what importing actually does (create a mapping? link a SIP user to a Teams UUID?). It does not distinguish this from siblings like placetel_sync_microsoft_teams_user or placetel_list_microsoft_teams_users.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and crucially no disambiguation from placetel_sync_microsoft_teams_user, placetel_disconnect_microsoft_teams_user, or placetel_list_microsoft_teams_users, all of which operate on the same resource. An agent must guess which Teams-user operation is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.