Microsoft 365 MCP Server

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint: true and openWorldHint: true, yet the description mentions neither the destructive nature (unusual for search) nor the external/open-world access. The description carries the burden of explaining this non-obvious behavior but provides only generic 'search results are provided' text.

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?

The description consists of two brief sentences containing no redundancy. However, for a tool with 20+ nested configuration fields and destructive annotations, this brevity represents under-specification rather than effective conciseness, failing the 'appropriately sized' criterion.

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?

Given the complex input schema (nested requests, aggregations, collapse properties), destructive annotations, lack of output schema, and 80+ sibling tools, the two-sentence description is grossly incomplete. It omits pagination behavior, supported entity types, and the significance of the 'from' and 'size' parameters.

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 67%, with extensive descriptions for nested fields like aggregationFilters and entityTypes. The description mentions 'request body' corresponding to the body parameter but adds no semantic value for the top-level includeHeaders/excludeResponse flags or the complex nested request structure.

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 states 'Runs the query' which is vague and nearly tautological with the tool name 'search-query'. It fails to specify that this searches across Microsoft 365 entities (messages, events, drive items, etc.) as revealed in the schema's entityTypes enum, leaving the agent uncertain about the tool's scope.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the numerous specific retrieval siblings (e.g., list-mail-messages, get-calendar-view). Given the complex Graph Search API capabilities (aggregations, collapsing, content sources), the absence of usage criteria leaves the agent without selection criteria.

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