Lists all SharePoint sites accessible to your connected Microsoft 365 work or school account. Use it to identify available site collections for domain discovery.
Lists the SharePoint sites the connected Microsoft 365 work or school account can open: {"sites": [each sit...
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.0.430Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does convey one useful behavioral trait — results are permission-scoped to the connected work/school account — but says nothing about pagination, result limits, ordering, or what happens when no account is connected. The return-shape explanation is also cut off mid-sentence, leaving the disclosure incomplete.
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 opening clause is front-loaded and efficient, but the definition trails off into an unterminated JSON fragment ('{"sites": [each sit...'), which reads as an unfinished sentence rather than deliberate brevity. It is short but structurally broken.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description is the only place return shape could be explained — and the attempt to show a '{sites: [...]}' envelope is truncated before conveying what each site entry contains. For a discovery/listing tool that an agent will chain into sharepoint_list_files, this leaves a real gap.
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 input schema has zero properties, so there are no parameters whose semantics could be clarified or omitted. Baseline of 4 applies; no description text could improve on an empty parameter set.
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?
Names a specific verb and resource ('Lists the SharePoint sites') and adds a meaningful scope qualifier: only sites the connected Microsoft 365 work or school account can open. That distinguishes it from sharepoint_list_files and sharepoint_read_file by implication, though it never names those siblings explicitly.
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 when-to-use guidance and no exclusions or alternatives are stated. The account-scoping phrase ('connected Microsoft 365 work or school account') hints at the prerequisite that connect_m365_account must already be connected, but the agent must infer that rather than being told.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.