Retrieve Microsoft Graph API snapshot metadata by date or endpoint, including entity, property, and enum counts, CSDL size, and change counts to assess schema size and trends.
Snapshot metadata — entity/property/enum counts, CSDL size, change count. "How big is Graph API now?" and trend analysis.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| date | No | ISO date (YYYY-MM-DD); defaults to latest | |
| endpoint | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2026.10.23Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden. It discloses what metadata is included (counts, CSDL size, change count), which is useful, but omits operational details like permissions, data freshness, and cost. It is moderately transparent but not thorough.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core content. The quoted use case is efficient and earns its place. Slightly fragmentary structure but no wasted words.
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 two-parameter summary tool with no output schema, the description gives the returned metrics but leaves parameters and usage boundaries under-explained. An agent can call it, but with some ambiguity about when to choose it over siblings.
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 description does not mention either parameter. The schema describes the date parameter but not the endpoint enum, giving 50% coverage. The description adds no semantic context for either parameter, so it fails to compensate for the 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 specific resource and set of metrics: entity/property/enum counts, CSDL size, change count. It is clear what the tool returns, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like get_recent_changes or search_changes.
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?
It offers two use cases ('How big is Graph API now?' and trend analysis), which implies when to use it. However, it does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer the boundary with sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.