Microsoft Graph MCP Server

upload_file

Upload files to Microsoft 365 folders by supplying parent ID, file name, and base64-encoded content.

Instructions

Upload a file. content_base64: base64-encoded file content.

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": {
      "parent_id": "<parent_id>",
      "name": "<name>",
      "content_base64": "<content_base64>"
    },
    "name": "upload_file"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`name`	Yes
`parent_id`	Yes
`content_type`	No	text/plain
`content_base64`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 8, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

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 does not mention authentication needs, overwrite behavior, size limits, whether the upload is synchronous, or what the response contains. It only states the raw operation and one encoding detail.

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 concise and front-loaded with the main action, followed by the one useful parameter detail. There is no filler or redundancy, though the brevity comes at the cost of missing substantive guidance.

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?

With no output schema, no annotations, and 0% schema description coverage, this description leaves too much unspecified. The agent cannot infer the destination semantics, expected response, or why create_upload_session exists as a sibling. The definition is minimal enough to be risky for correct invocation.

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 lack of parameter docs. It explains content_base64 but leaves required parameters like parent_id and name unexplained, and says nothing about content_type or its default value.

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 clearly states the primary action ('Upload a file') with a specific verb and resource, and even highlights that content is base64-encoded. However, it does not differentiate this tool from siblings like create_upload_session or update_file, which are closely related 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?

There is no guidance on when to use upload_file versus alternatives such as create_upload_session, nor any mention of prerequisites like parent_id or constraints such as file size. The description provides no context for tool selection.

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

Deploy Server