Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Microsoft Graph MCP Server

Microsoft Graph MCP Server

by oliverhruby
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

get_file_content

Retrieve a file's content from Microsoft 365 as base64-encoded data, enabling secure access for downstream processing.

Instructions

Get file content (returns base64-encoded).

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": "get_file_content"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
file_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose that the return value is base64-encoded, which is useful, but it does not mention size limits, authentication needs, or how the content is returned beyond encoding.

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 concise sentence that states the action and the key return format without any filler. Every word 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?

For a single-parameter tool, the description is adequate at a basic level: it names the action and the encoding. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it leaves important context unstated, such as what kind of file_id is expected and whether this is the right tool relative to other content-retrieval siblings.

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%, and the description adds no detail about the file_id parameter beyond what the schema already shows. The parameter name is reasonably self-explanatory, but with low schema coverage the description should compensate by explaining what file_id refers to or how it is used.

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 clear verb ('Get') and resource ('file content'), and the parenthetical adds the base64 encoding detail. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools such as get_file or download_attachment, so it stops short of a full 5.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_file, download_attachment, or get_transcript_content. The description only says what the tool does, not when it should be preferred.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools