graph-excel-mcp

login_status

Read-only

Checks Microsoft Graph sign-in status and, if needed, starts device-code login, returning the URL and code so the user can authenticate, then rechecks completion.

Instructions

Check the Microsoft Graph sign-in. If not signed in, starts a device code login and returns the URL + code: give them to the user (never sign in for them), then call login_status again once they say they're done.

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": "login_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.5.0Nov 6, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses a genuine side effect (starting a device-code login), what the tool hands back (URL plus code), and the required user hand-off. The one gap is that it never describes the response when the user is already signed in, and there is no output schema to cover that; note also that the login-start side effect sits in mild tension with readOnlyHint=true.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

It is a single compact sentence front-loaded with the primary action and the conditional branch, with no filler. The colon-and-parenthetical construction is slightly dense but still readable, and every clause carries an instruction the agent needs.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a simple, no-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers both branches and the required agent behavior well enough to call it correctly. The only missing piece is what a successful already-signed-in result looks like.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The tool takes zero parameters and the description correctly implies that no input is needed, so there is nothing for it to disambiguate. Baseline of 4 applies for a 0-parameter tool.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Check the Microsoft Graph sign-in') and immediately states the conditional fallback, so an agent knows exactly what the tool does. It does not explain how this auth check relates to the surrounding Sheets-oriented siblings, but none of those siblings are close enough to be confused with it.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It gives an explicit call sequence: check first, and only if not signed in hand the URL and code to the user, then call login_status again after they confirm. It also states a hard prohibition ('never sign in for them'), which removes the main way an agent could misuse this tool.

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

Deploy Server