Microsoft 365 MCP Server

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

Annotations declare this as readOnly (true) and non-destructive (false), covering the safety profile. The description doesn't add behavioral context beyond this, such as pagination behavior, default page sizes, or Microsoft Graph API specifics implied by the OData-style parameters (filter, expand, etc.).

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?

Single sentence with no redundancy. However, given the richness of the query interface (11 parameters), an additional sentence mentioning OData query support would improve utility without sacrificing clarity.

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?

The description adequately identifies the return type (plannertask objects) and user-assigned scope. However, for a tool with complex querying capabilities (search, filter, expand), it lacks completeness regarding how to leverage these options or what the response structure entails.

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%, documenting all 11 parameters including OData query options (filter, orderby, expand). The description adds no parameter-specific guidance, but with complete schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the action (Retrieve), resource (plannertask objects), and scope (assigned to a User). The phrase 'assigned to a User' effectively distinguishes this from sibling tools like list-plan-tasks (likely scoped to a plan) and get-planner-task (singular retrieval by ID).

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 is provided on when to use this versus alternatives like get-planner-task (for specific task lookup) or create-planner-task. With 11 query parameters available, there is no direction on how to construct effective queries.

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