Inserts HTML text content into a specific column and section of a SharePoint page, enabling rich text layout via the API.
Add a text web part (HTML) to a section
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| html | Yes | HTML content (supports <h2>, <p>, <ul>, <a>, <strong>, <em>, etc.) | |
| pageId | Yes | ||
| siteId | Yes | ||
| columnIndex | Yes | Column index (1-based) | |
| sectionIndex | Yes | Section index (1-based) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing. It doesn't say whether the target section/column must already exist, whether the page must be republished afterward, what permissions are required, or what happens on failure for a mutating operation.
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 short, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is efficient, though its brevity edges toward under-specification rather than crispness.
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 5-parameter mutating tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits prerequisites, return behavior, and side effects. An agent would need to open the schema and guess at the surrounding workflow (e.g., that a section must exist and the page may need publishing).
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 coverage is 60%: html, columnIndex, and sectionIndex are documented in the schema, while siteId and pageId are undocumented everywhere. The description adds no parameter meaning at all beyond the vague phrase 'to a section', so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
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 a verb and resource ('Add a text web part') but is largely a restatement of the tool name, with only '(HTML)' and 'to a section' adding anything. It implies differentiation from siblings like add_image_webpart or add_custom_webpart by resource type, but never makes that contrast explicit.
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, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as add_custom_webpart for non-HTML content or add_image_webpart. The agent must infer from the name alone that this is for text/HTML content.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.