Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Microsoft Graph MCP Server

Microsoft Graph MCP Server

by oliverhruby
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

read_range

Retrieve cell values from an Excel worksheet range using Microsoft Graph. Provide file ID and address (e.g., A1:C10) to fetch the data.

Instructions

Read cell values from a range. address: e.g. 'A1:C10' or 'A1'.

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>",
      "address": "<address>"
    },
    "name": "read_range"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
addressYes
file_idYes
worksheetNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states the action (read) but does not mention side effects, permissions, or any limitations. As a read operation, the lack of destructive side effects is implied but not explicit.

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 extremely concise, using one sentence to convey the core purpose. It is well-structured and avoids unnecessary details.

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 is sufficient for a simple read operation, but it lacks parameter details and any usage context. Given the ample sibling tools, more context could help disambiguate, but the simplicity keeps it adequate.

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?

Only the 'address' parameter is described with an example format. The 'file_id' and 'worksheet' parameters are not explained, leaving their purpose and requirements unclear. Schema coverage is only 33%, so the description adds minimal value beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the tool reads cell values from a range, using the specific verb 'read' and resource 'range'. It distinguishes itself from write_range and other spreadsheet operations.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention context, prerequisites, or scenarios where this tool is appropriate.

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