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 states this is a list operation (implying read-only) and mentions the return format, but lacks details on permissions required, pagination behavior, error handling, or rate limits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 purpose and includes essential return information. There is no wasted verbiage or redundancy, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 adequate but incomplete. It lacks output schema, so the return format ('folder names, IDs, and metadata') is helpful, but without annotations, it misses behavioral context like authentication needs or error conditions, leaving room for improvement.

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 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'parent_folder' well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter details beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage without adding extra value.

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 action ('List all folders') and resource ('in a specified SharePoint directory'), and specifies what information is returned ('folder names, IDs, and metadata'). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from its sibling 'get_folder_tree', which might also list folders but with a different structure or scope.

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 like 'get_folder_tree' or 'list_documents'. It mentions the parent folder parameter but doesn't explain when to use it versus leaving it empty for the root, nor does it discuss prerequisites such as authentication status.

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