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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the return format ('file names, sizes, and metadata') but lacks critical details such as pagination behavior, error handling for invalid paths, permissions required, or whether it's a read-only operation. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core functionality and return values. There is no wasted language, and it directly communicates the tool's purpose without redundancy.

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 the tool's low complexity (one optional parameter) and high schema coverage, the description is somewhat complete but lacks output schema and behavioral details. It covers the basic operation but misses context like authentication needs or error scenarios, which is adequate but leaves clear gaps for an agent to use it effectively.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'folder_path' well-documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by implying the tool lists documents in a folder, but doesn't provide additional context like examples of valid paths or how empty paths are handled. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('documents/files in a specified SharePoint folder'), and specifies what information is returned ('file names, sizes, and metadata'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_folders' by focusing on documents, but doesn't explicitly contrast with tools like 'get_folder_tree' that might also list documents.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention when to choose 'list_documents' over 'list_folders' or 'get_folder_tree', nor does it specify prerequisites like authentication status or folder existence.

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