SharePoint MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: it returns a URL for user browser authentication and requires a running auth server. However, it doesn't cover other aspects like error handling, timeouts, or what happens if the server isn't running. The description adds value but lacks comprehensive behavioral context.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded: it starts with the core purpose, then adds essential details (returns a URL, server prerequisite). Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it efficient and easy to parse.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is moderately complete. It explains the tool's purpose, output (a URL), and a prerequisite. However, for an authentication tool, it could benefit from more context, such as what the URL is used for or how to handle the authentication flow after opening it. It's adequate but has clear gaps.

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

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

The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter info, which is appropriate. Baseline is 4 for 0 parameters, as it doesn't need to compensate for any gaps.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Start the SharePoint authentication process.' It specifies the verb ('Start') and resource ('SharePoint authentication process'), making it easy to understand what it does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'check_auth_status' or 'logout', which are related to authentication but serve different functions.

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

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

The description provides clear context on when to use this tool: 'The auth server must be running first (npm run auth-server).' This gives a prerequisite condition. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context implies it's for initiating authentication, not checking status or logging out.

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