Microsoft Graph MCP Server

get_site_by_path

Locate a SharePoint site by its hostname and path (e.g., 'contoso.sharepoint.com' and 'sites/marketing' or empty for root).

Instructions

Get a site by its full path. hostname: e.g. 'contoso.sharepoint.com'. path: e.g. 'sites/marketing' or '' for root.

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": {
      "hostname": "<hostname>",
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "get_site_by_path"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`path`	Yes
`hostname`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 8, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

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 only defines the inputs and gives examples, but does not disclose what happens when the site is not found, whether the operation is read-only, or what the response contains. This is a significant gap for a retrieval tool with no annotation support.

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 concise sentences, front-loads the core purpose, and uses examples to clarify parameters without any filler. 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?

For a simple two-parameter lookup tool, the description covers the essential calling details well. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it leaves out behavioral expectations such as error cases and return value shape, so it is adequate 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it explains hostname with a realistic example and path with both a sub-site example and the root sentinel value (''). This adds meaningful semantic clarity beyond the bare schema property names.

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: 'Get a site by its full path', which distinguishes it from siblings like search_sites, get_root_site, and get_site by identifying the exact lookup method (full path including hostname). The examples of hostname and path further clarify the intended resource.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies when to use this tool: when you know the full hostname and path of a site. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives such as search_sites for discovery or get_root_site for the root site, so usage guidance is only implicit.

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

Deploy Server