Microsoft Graph MCP Server

create_sharing_link

Create a sharing link for any file by specifying its ID, choosing a link type (view, edit, embed), and setting an access scope (anonymous, organization, users).

Instructions

Create a sharing link. link_type: 'view', 'edit', 'embed'. scope: 'anonymous', 'organization', 'users'.

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": {
      "file_id": "<file_id>"
    },
    "name": "create_sharing_link"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`scope`	No	organization
`file_id`	Yes
`link_type`	No	view

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 8, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects, permissions, or security implications. It only lists allowed values for parameters, but does not explain consequences such as anonymous access making a file publicly shareable or whether existing links are affected.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence followed by compact value lists. There is no filler, and the most important parameter options are presented directly after stating the tool's purpose.

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?

As a mutating operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is not complete enough for safe autonomous use. It does not explain return behavior, security consequences of the scope values, or how this tool relates to revoke_sharing_link, leaving important operational context missing.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description adds useful meaning by enumerating allowed values for link_type and scope, which the schema does not provide as enums. The required file_id remains somewhat underspecified, though its schema title and the tool name give reasonable context.

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 clear action and resource: 'Create a sharing link.' It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool revoke_sharing_link by focusing on creation rather than removal. The listed link_type and scope options further clarify the tool's purpose without ambiguity.

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 does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives such as revoke_sharing_link or list_permissions. It provides no prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual cues beyond the verb 'create,' so an agent receives minimal guidance about selecting it.

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

Deploy Server