Microsoft 365 MCP Server

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

The 'Read-only' statement aligns with readOnlyHint=true annotation but adds no behavioral context beyond annotations. It fails to explain pagination behavior (fetchAllPages parameter), OData query options (select/expand), or what constitutes the 'root' in this context.

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?

Extremely brief (6 words) with no redundancy, but structured as disjointed fragments rather than cohesive sentences. While concise, the extreme brevity leads to under-specification of tool behavior.

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 6-parameter tool with OData query options and pagination controls, two fragments provide insufficient context. No output schema exists, yet the description doesn't hint at return value structure or the significance of the root folder as a navigation anchor.

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 description coverage is 100%, establishing baseline 3. The description mentions no parameters and provides no semantic guidance beyond the schema (e.g., explaining that select/expand follow OData conventions or that driveId comes from list-drives).

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?

The description uses noun phrases ('The root folder') rather than action verbs, failing to clearly state the tool retrieves/obtains the resource. It does not differentiate from siblings like list-drives or list-folder-files, nor does it explain this is the entry point for drive navigation.

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 guidance provided on when to use this tool versus list-drives, list-folder-files, or other drive-related operations. The required driveId parameter and its relationship to list-drives output is not explained.

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