Microsoft Graph MCP Server

create_online_meeting

Schedule a Microsoft Teams online meeting by providing subject, start, and end datetime. Optionally invite participants using semicolon-separated email addresses.

Instructions

Create a Teams online meeting. participants: semicolon-separated emails (optional).

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": {
      "subject": "<subject>",
      "start_datetime": "<start_datetime>",
      "end_datetime": "<end_datetime>"
    },
    "name": "create_online_meeting"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`subject`	Yes
`end_datetime`	Yes
`participants`	No
`start_datetime`	Yes
`join_meeting_settings`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 8, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

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. It says the tool creates a meeting but does not explain side effects like whether invitations are sent, whether a join link is generated, what join_meeting_settings does, or what the response contains.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is short and front-loaded with the primary purpose. The participant note adds useful semantic value. It is concise, though the terseness leaves important gaps covered under other dimensions.

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?

For a 5-parameter creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It omits datetime format expectations, join_meeting_settings behavior, invitation semantics, and any return value or confirmation details.

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

Parameters2/5

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. It explains only participants format ('semicolon-separated emails (optional)') but leaves subject, start_datetime, end_datetime, and join_meeting_settings meanings and formats undocumented.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Create a Teams online meeting.' This clearly distinguishes it from calendar-event tools like create_event and from read-only meeting tools like list_online_meetings or get_online_meeting.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_event or send_mail. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or conditions that would make this tool the right choice.

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

Deploy Server