get_channel_messageFetch a single channel message by ID to retrieve its full body and metadata. Use this to access specific message details in Microsoft Teams.
Fetch a single channel message by id, with its full body and metadata.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| team_id | Yes | Team id (from list_teams) | |
| channel_id | Yes | Channel id (from list_channels) | |
| message_id | Yes | Message id (from list_channel_messages) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds that the response contains 'full body and metadata', which is useful but does not disclose behavior such as not-found handling, error conditions, or permission requirements.
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, direct sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core verb and resource, then specifies the result in a compact and useful way.
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 simple read-only fetch operation backed by complete schema descriptions and safety annotations, the description is sufficient. It states the purpose and result, while the schema covers parameter details, and annotations cover behavioral safety.
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 description coverage is 100% and all three parameters are already described with their sources. The description adds the general notion of fetching 'by id' but not additional meaning beyond the schema.
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 uses a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('a single channel message by id'), and clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling list operations by emphasizing 'single' and including 'full body and metadata'. An agent can immediately tell this tool retrieves one message rather than a list.
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 phrase 'a single channel message by id' clearly communicates when to use this tool: when a specific message id is known and the full message body/metadata is needed. It does not explicitly name alternatives like list_channel_messages, but the contrast between 'single' and the sibling list tools is clear enough.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.