OneDrive MCP Server

search_files

Locate specific files and folders in OneDrive by searching names recursively within a chosen folder.

Instructions

Busca archivos y carpetas por nombre dentro de una carpeta (busqueda recursiva).

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "folderPath": "<folderPath>",
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "search_files"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`query`	Yes	Texto a buscar en el nombre del archivo
`folderPath`	Yes	Carpeta donde buscar, ej: 'onedrive' o 'aisquad/Exploraciones'

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 2, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that the search is recursive, which is a meaningful behavioral trait. However, it does not disclose return format, case sensitivity, or any permissions—minimal behavioral context beyond the recursive flag.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One concise sentence that gets straight to the point, front-loaded with the verb, with no unnecessary words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description is adequate for a simple search tool but leaves out important operational details such as what the results contain (paths? names?) and any limitations. Given no output schema, a bit more context would be helpful.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema already describes both parameters (query and folderPath) with clear examples and coverage is 100%, so the description adds little extra parameter semantics. It only reiterates that search is by name, which aligns with the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool searches files and folders by name within a folder, using a specific verb (busca) and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_files or read_file, which have different purposes.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage—when you need to find files/folders by name—but it does not explicitly compare with alternatives or state when not to use it. No exclusion criteria or alternative tool names are mentioned.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server