Fetch a bounded history of Microsoft Teams channel messages within a specified time range, using team and channel references to target the right channel.
Read bounded history for an operator-registered synthetic channel alias.
| 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 the 'bounded' scope and the synthetic-alias context, but it does not disclose return format, pagination, or access requirements. It adds some value but not rich behavioral context.
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 and front-loaded, but it is under-specified for a tool with 6 parameters and 4 required fields. This is not effective conciseness; it omits needed operational context.
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 no output schema and no parameter descriptions, the description is too incomplete for reliable invocation. It does not mention required fields, datetime format expectations, limits, or what the returned history looks like. Read-only annotations help, but the tool still lacks sufficient guidance.
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 parameter-level meaning. 'Bounded history' vaguely hints at a time range or limit, but it does not explain team_ref, channel_ref, start_datetime, end_datetime, timezone, or limit. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation.
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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Read bounded history' for a 'synthetic channel alias.' It clearly identifies what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like teams_channel_digest.
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?
The phrase 'operator-registered synthetic channel alias' implies when the tool is appropriate, but there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over siblings such as teams_channel_digest or mail_list_inbox. Usage context is implied rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.