Limits LMCP's access to one OneDrive to a single folder.
Limits LMCP's access to one OneDrive to a single folder.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "onedrive_set_scope"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.0.352v3.0.341v3.0.165Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it omits key traits for a security-sensitive operation: whether the change is reversible, what happens to previously granted access, how scope is cleared, and whether it requires a live OneDrive connection. 'Limits access' implies a potentially impactful, non-trivial state change that goes unexplained.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the action and constraint appear immediately.
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 scope-restricting tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameters, the description is too thin: it does not explain the selection mechanism, side effects, or how to undo the restriction. An agent cannot confidently predict the outcome of calling it.
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?
The schema has zero properties, so there are no parameters for the description to clarify; per the 0-param baseline this sits at 4. The description adds nothing here – notably it never explains how a target folder is identified without any input argument.
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?
States a specific verb (limits) and resource (LMCP's access to one OneDrive) plus the effect (single folder), which is distinguishable from siblings like onedrive_disconnect or gdrive_set_scope. It stops short of explaining which folder is chosen, but the core purpose is legible.
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 on when to use this versus onedrive_disconnect, gdrive_set_scope, or the other onedrive_* tools. It does not state prerequisites (e.g., needing a connected account) or when a caller would want to narrow scope at all.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.