Microsoft Graph MCP Server

create_chat

Create a group or one-on-one Microsoft Teams chat by specifying members as semicolon-separated UPNs.

Instructions

Create a chat. chat_type: 'group' or 'oneOnOne'. members: semicolon-separated UPNs.

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": {
      "chat_type": "<chat_type>"
    },
    "name": "create_chat"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`topic`	No
`members`	No
`chat_type`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 8, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the create action and parameter formats, but does not disclose side effects, permissions required, whether a chat is immediately active, or what the response contains. This is a meaningful gap for a mutation tool.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded ('Create a chat.'), and the parameter notes are compact and directly useful. Every sentence earns its place.

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 description covers the essential creation inputs and value formats, but with no annotations and no output schema it omits useful context: whether members are required for oneOnOne chats, what the success response looks like, and any behavioral caveats. It is adequate for a simple tool but not fully complete.

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?

Even though schema description coverage is 0%, the description adds concrete semantic value: chat_type is restricted to 'group' or 'oneOnOne', and members must be semicolon-separated UPNs. This goes beyond the bare schema. The only uncovered parameter is 'topic', whose meaning is largely inferable from its name.

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 verb and resource: 'Create a chat.' It also clarifies the two main variants via chat_type ('group' or 'oneOnOne'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_chats, get_chat, and send_chat_message. The purpose is immediately clear and not tautological.

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. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or point to sibling tools for related operations. Usage is only implied by the phrase 'Create a chat,' with no explicit context or routing.

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

Deploy Server