Microsoft Graph MCP Server

batch_request

Execute up to 20 Microsoft Graph requests in a single round trip by supplying a JSON array of id, method, url, and optional body/headers. This reduces overhead and speeds up data operations.

Instructions

Execute up to 20 Graph requests in one round trip. requests_json: JSON array of {id, method, url, body?, headers?}. Relative URLs like '/me/messages' are relative to the selected API version.

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": {
      "requests_json": "<requests_json>"
    },
    "name": "batch_request"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`requests_json`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 8, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the batch size limit and relative URL resolution, but does not mention response format, failure semantics, rate limits, or error handling, leaving notable behavioral gaps.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is three short sentences with no filler. The operational scope and parameter format are front-loaded, making the tool's purpose immediately clear.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The core call contract is covered: batch limit, parameter structure, and URL resolution. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the absence of response/error semantics and batch-level behavior leaves room for ambiguity about what the tool returns and how failures are handled.

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

Parameters5/5

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

The schema only provides a bare string parameter with 0% description coverage. The description fully compensates by specifying that requests_json is a JSON array of {id, method, url, body?, headers?} and explaining relative URL behavior, which is essential for correct invocation.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description states a specific action ('Execute'), a bounded resource ('up to 20 Graph requests'), and frames it as a single round trip. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools, which perform individual Graph operations.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The phrase 'in one round trip' clearly communicates the intended use case: consolidating multiple Graph requests. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficient for an agent to infer when batching is appropriate.

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

Deploy Server