Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Microsoft Graph MCP Server

Microsoft Graph MCP Server

by oliverhruby
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

send_chat_message

Send a text or HTML message to a specified Microsoft Teams chat using its chat ID.

Instructions

Send a message to a chat. content_type: 'text' or 'html'.

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": {
      "chat_id": "<chat_id>",
      "content": "<content>"
    },
    "name": "send_chat_message"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
chat_idYes
contentYes
content_typeNotext

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and content_type values, without explaining side effects, permissions, delivery semantics, or failure behavior. The send operation implies a side effect, but the description does not elaborate on it.

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 very short and front-loaded, with no filler or redundant phrasing. Both sentences earn their place, though the brevity contributes to under-specification in 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?

Despite the tool's relatively simple signature, the description lacks crucial routing context to distinguish it from send_channel_message and other messaging siblings. It also provides no expectations about return values or behavior, making it incomplete for an agent operating without further guidance.

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 for the schema's lack of parameter explanations. It only clarifies content_type by listing its possible values, while chat_id and content receive no additional semantic meaning beyond their names.

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 uses a specific verb and resource, 'Send a message to a chat,' making the core purpose immediately clear. It also states the allowed content_type values, which adds useful precision. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the closely related send_channel_message sibling.

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 like send_channel_message or send_mail. There are no mentions of prerequisite context, such as needing an existing chat, or exclusions for other messaging tools.

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