msgraph-mcp

by jspv

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Hybrid

list_events

List calendar events within a date range. For shared calendars, include the user's ID.

Instructions

List events from a calendar in a time range. Pass user_id for shared calendars.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_events"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No
`end_iso`	No
`user_id`	No
`start_iso`	No
`account_id`	No
`calendar_id`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 29, 2026

TDQS

C2.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behaviors. It does not mention pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens with empty results. For a listing tool, this is insufficient.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is very concise (two sentences), but it omits critical details. Conciseness is maintained, but at the cost of completeness. A slightly longer description with parameter context would improve this.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given 6 parameters, no annotations, and 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on defaults (e.g., limit default 25), required vs optional parameters, and behavior without filters. The presence of output schema slightly reduces the burden, but not enough.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description only adds meaning for user_id (shared calendars hint). Other parameters like start_iso, end_iso, limit, account_id, calendar_id are left unexplained, forcing the agent to infer from names.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states the action ('List events') and context ('from a calendar in a time range'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_event (single event) and create_event (different action). It lacks explicit differentiation but is specific enough.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The only guidance is 'Pass user_id for shared calendars,' which is a minor hint. There is no mention of when to use this tool vs alternatives like get_event or search_people, nor any exclusion criteria.

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