Retrieve your Microsoft Teams conversations, including group chats, 1:1 chats, and team posts, newest first with IDs; filter by name to find a specific chat.
List the user's Teams chats (group chats, 1:1 chats, teams) with their ids, newest first.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| match | No | Only names containing this text |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
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 and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-redundant behavior: results are ordered newest first and each item carries its id, which tells the agent how to chain into get_messages. It does not mention result limits or pagination.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the scope detail and return-shape hints packed into the same clause. Nothing is wasted.
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?
An output schema exists and annotations cover safety, so the description only needs to orient the agent, which it does by naming the resource, the ordering, and the ids. The one gap is that the 'match' filter is never acknowledged, so an agent reading only the description might not realize it can narrow the list.
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% with a single optional 'match' parameter that the schema fully documents as a substring name filter, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds nothing about filtering, leaving the schema to carry that meaning entirely.
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 gives a specific verb and resource ('List the user's Teams chats') and even enumerates the conversation kinds covered (group chats, 1:1 chats, teams), which is far more precise than the bare tool name. It does not explicitly contrast itself with search_messages or export_chats, but the resource differs enough that confusion is unlikely.
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?
Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the entry point for discovering chats before calling get_messages or export_chats, but the description never states when to use it versus search_messages or whether it paginates. No explicit when-not conditions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.