Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Microsoft Graph MCP Server

Microsoft Graph MCP Server

by oliverhruby
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

update_list_item

Update a SharePoint list item's column values by providing a JSON object of field names and new values. Specify site, list, and item IDs to target the item.

Instructions

Update list item fields. fields_json: JSON object of {columnName: value}.

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": {
      "site_id": "<site_id>",
      "list_id": "<list_id>",
      "item_id": "<item_id>",
      "fields_json": "<fields_json>"
    },
    "name": "update_list_item"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
item_idYes
list_idYes
site_idYes
fields_jsonYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
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 behavioral disclosure burden. It communicates that the operation mutates a list item, but it does not mention permissions, partial-update semantics, behavior for unknown column names, or what the response contains.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler: the first states the action and the second clarifies the one non-obvious parameter. The structure is efficient and front-loaded.

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?

This is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, yet the description only covers the action and fields_json format. It omits prerequisites, ID semantics, return value, and error behavior, leaving too much for the agent to infer.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With schema_description_coverage at 0%, the description adds meaningful value for fields_json by defining it as a JSON object of {columnName: value}. However, site_id, list_id, and item_id are not explained, even though their names are somewhat self-explanatory.

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?

States a specific action ('Update') and resource ('list item fields'), making it immediately distinguishable from create_list_item, delete_list_item, and get_list_item. The word 'fields' clarifies exactly what aspect of the list item is affected.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_list_item or update_table_row. It also does not state prerequisites like the item needing to exist before an update can be performed.

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