search_drive_filesFind files and folders in OneDrive by name or content using a search query. Returns matching results, with an optional limit on the number of items.
Search across OneDrive for files and folders matching a query (name/content).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| top | No | Maximum results (capped by OUTLOOK_MAX_RESULTS) | |
| query | Yes | Search text. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that it searches by name/content, which is useful context, but does not disclose behaviors like pagination, result ordering, or rate limits. It adds modest value beyond annotations.
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, efficient sentence that front-loads the action and scope. It contains no redundant words and conveys the essential purpose without unnecessary detail.
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?
The tool is simple, annotations cover safety, and the schema documents parameters. However, there is no output schema, and the description does not mention what the search returns (e.g., a list of items), which could leave the agent uncertain about the expected response format. This is a minor gap for a search tool.
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 100%, so both 'query' and 'top' are already described in the schema. The description does not add any additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 it searches OneDrive for files and folders, matching by name or content. It specifies the action (search), the resource (OneDrive), and the scope (files and folders), distinguishing it from search_messages and list_drive_items.
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?
The description implies usage when searching for files/folders, but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like search_messages or list_drive_items. It lacks when-not-to-use guidance or references to sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.