Retrieve a digest of explicit decisions, tasks, plans, statuses, blockers, and questions from a Microsoft Teams channel within a specified time range.
Classify only explicit decision, task, plan, status, blocker, and question markers.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| team_ref | Yes | ||
| timezone | No | ||
| channel_ref | Yes | ||
| end_datetime | Yes | ||
| start_datetime | 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 destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a meaningful behavioral boundary by stating that only explicit markers are classified, implying implicit or ambiguous content will be ignored. This is useful context, though it does not disclose return shape, pagination, or aggregation behavior.
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?
The description is a single short sentence with no filler, but it is under-specified rather than concise in a useful way. It front-loads a classification rule while omitting the tool's primary function, making the brevity a liability.
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?
With six parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the description is far too incomplete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. The readOnlyHint and sibling names add some context, but the description fails to explain what a 'digest' is, what data it returns, or how the classification markers map to an actionable result.
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 description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no information about team_ref, channel_ref, start_datetime, end_datetime, limit, or timezone. The parameter semantics are entirely undocumented in both the schema and the description, so an agent cannot know how to format datetime values or how limit affects results.
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 names a specific action ('Classify') and enumerates the marker types (decision, task, plan, status, blocker, question), so it is not a pure tautology. However, it never states the resource being classified (presumably Teams channel messages) or what output the digest produces, leaving the core purpose vague. It also does not distinguish itself from the sibling teams_channel_history.
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?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as teams_channel_history or calendar_agenda. The phrase 'only explicit' hints at a conservative classification policy, but it does not explain use cases, exclusions, or selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.