Microsoft Graph MCP Server

copy_section_to_notebook

Copy an existing OneNote section to a specified notebook by providing section and notebook IDs, allowing quick duplication of notes across notebooks.

Instructions

Copy a section to a notebook.

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": {
      "section_id": "<section_id>",
      "notebook_id": "<notebook_id>"
    },
    "name": "copy_section_to_notebook"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`site_id`	No
`section_id`	Yes
`notebook_id`	Yes
`site_collection_id`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 8, 2026

TDQS

C2.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Copy a section to a notebook' repeats the tool name and does not explain side effects, whether the original is preserved, permissions required, or what response is returned. For a mutating operation this is a significant gap.

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?

The description is a single concise sentence with no filler, which is structurally simple. However, it is under-specified rather than efficiently complete, omitting essential context that the tool definition should provide.

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 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description needs to provide context about required versus optional parameters, the meaning of site identifiers, and expected behavior. It does none of this, leaving the tool under-documented for an agent to invoke reliably.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining the parameters. It only mentions 'section' and 'notebook' in general terms and never clarifies the roles of site_id or site_collection_id, which are present in the schema but have no descriptions.

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 states a specific action ('Copy'), a resource ('section'), and a destination ('notebook'), which is clear and distinct from most sibling tools. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from other copy/move operations like copy_file, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, what prerequisites exist, or what conditions make it appropriate. It merely states the action, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and schema.

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

Deploy Server