msgraph-mcp

by jspv

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Hybrid

respond_to_event

Respond to meeting invites with accept, decline, or tentative. Supports shared calendars via user_id.

Instructions

Respond to a meeting invite. Pass user_id for shared calendars.

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": {
      "event_id": "<event_id>",
      "response": "<response>"
    },
    "name": "respond_to_event"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`message`	No
`user_id`	No
`event_id`	Yes
`response`	Yes
`account_id`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

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 provided, so description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions mutation (respond) but doesn't describe side effects (e.g., notifications to organizer), permissions needed, or what response values are accepted. The output schema exists but the description adds no context.

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?

Very short (two sentences), which is concise, but at the expense of necessary detail. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose, but lacks substance on parameters and behavior.

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?

With 5 parameters (2 required), no annotations, but an output schema exists, the description is significantly incomplete. It fails to explain the purpose of multiple parameters, response format, and behavioral implications, leaving critical gaps for an agent.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description only clarifies user_id ('for shared calendars'). It does not explain the required event_id and response, nor optional message and account_id. The meaning and constraints of the response parameter (e.g., accepted/declined) are missing.

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 ('Respond to a meeting invite') and the resource (meeting invite). It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_event or update_event, which handle different operations. However, it could be more specific about the response types (e.g., accept, decline).

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?

Minimal guidance: only mentions passing user_id for shared calendars. No explicit when-to-use vs alternatives (e.g., update_event might also modify event status), no prerequisites, and no when-not-to-use advice.

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