Switch between Microsoft accounts to access different services like Outlook, OneDrive, Teams, and SharePoint. Specify an account ID to change the active session for managing emails, files, and collaboration tasks.
Select a specific Microsoft account to use
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| accountId | Yes | The account ID to select |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.0.0-developmentDoes the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the action without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose what 'select' entails (e.g., sets a default context, requires authentication, has side effects, or returns confirmation), making it vague for safe invocation.
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 is a single, clear sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's apparent simplicity, making it easy to parse quickly.
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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what happens after selection (e.g., context change, return value, error handling), which is critical for a tool that likely affects subsequent operations in a multi-account environment.
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%, so the parameter 'accountId' is documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying selection targets an account, which the schema already covers, meeting the baseline for high coverage.
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 ('Select') and the resource ('a specific Microsoft account'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list-accounts' or 'verify-login' in terms of when selection is needed versus listing or verification.
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 tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing to list accounts first), exclusions, or how it relates to siblings like 'login' or 'remove-account', leaving the agent to infer usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.