Microsoft 365 MCP Server

create-onenote-section-page

Destructive

Add a new page to a OneNote section to organize notes, ideas, or documentation within Microsoft 365.

Instructions

Create a new page in the specified section.

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": {
      "body": "<body>",
      "onenoteSectionId": "<onenoteSectionId>"
    },
    "name": "create-onenote-section-page"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`body`	Yes
`onenoteSectionId`	Yes	Path parameter: onenoteSectionId
`includeHeaders`	No	Include response headers (including ETag) in the response metadata
`excludeResponse`	No	Exclude the full response body and only return success or failure indication

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.0.0-developmentMar 25, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false; the description confirms this with 'Create.' However, it adds no context about side effects, idempotency, or the 'openWorldHint' indicating external system interaction. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

Extremely concise single sentence with no wasted words. However, given the complex nested input schema and destructive nature, the brevity may underserve the agent; it is appropriately front-loaded with the action verb.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Inadequate for the tool's complexity. The schema contains deeply nested objects (body with parentNotebook, parentSection, etc.), 4 parameters, and destructive annotations, yet the description lacks details on return values, required body fields, or error conditions.

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 75%, establishing a baseline understanding. The description 'specified section' adds semantic meaning to the 'onenoteSectionId' parameter, but offers no guidance on the complex nested 'body' structure required for page content.

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?

The description states a specific verb (Create) and resource (page) with scope (in the specified section). It implies the target container via 'specified section,' which aligns with the onenoteSectionId parameter, but does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'create-onenote-page'.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus 'create-onenote-page' or other alternatives. No mention of prerequisites (e.g., obtaining the section ID first) or when not to use this tool.

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

Deploy Server