m365-mcp

Create Item

m365_create

Create Microsoft 365 mail folders, calendars, contacts, contact folders, and OneDrive folders from provided names/details, returning each newly added item.

Instructions

Create a mail folder, calendar, contact, contact folder or OneDrive folder. Supply the sub-object that matches resource. Not for emails (email_create_draft), events (calendar_create_event), inbox rules (email_rule_manage) or uploading files (drive_upload). Returns the created item.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`contact`	No	Required when resource='contact'.
`calendar`	No	Required when resource='calendar'.
`resource`	Yes	Type of item to create.
`account_id`	No	Account ID or email address. Omit when only one account is signed in.
`drive_folder`	No	Required when resource='drive_item' (creates a folder).
`email_folder`	No	Required when resource='email_folder'.
`contact_folder`	No	Required when resource='contact_folder'.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`item`	Yes
`summary`	Yes	One-line human summary. The tool's text content is this result serialized as JSON (summary included), so a client that ignores structuredContent still sees every field.
`resource`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv1.0.0Sep 29, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already disclose the safety profile (not read-only, not idempotent, not destructive, open-world), so the description only needs to add context. It adds that the call returns the created item and that a matching sub-object is required, but says nothing about duplicate-name handling (the schema-level 'if_exists' default of 'fail' is significant for creation) or what happens on partial failure.

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?

Three short sentences: capability first, the key structural rule second, exclusions third. No filler, no restatement of the title, and the highest-value routing information is front-loaded.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a 7-parameter polymorphic creator with nested objects and an output schema, the description covers capability, dispatch rule, exclusions and return shape adequately. The only gap is behavioral detail on idempotency and name collisions, which the annotations and schema partially cover.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% and each nested object is already labelled 'Required when resource=...', so the schema fully documents the polymorphic contract. The description's 'Supply the sub-object that matches resource' restates that relationship at a high level without adding format, default, or edge-case detail, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific verb ('Create') and enumerates the exact resource types it handles (mail folder, calendar, contact, contact folder, OneDrive folder), then explicitly routes four excluded operations to named siblings. An agent can distinguish this from email_create_draft, calendar_create_event and drive_upload without reading any schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicit when-not guidance is given for four adjacent operations, each paired with the sibling that should be used instead. It also gives the positive selection rule: supply the sub-object that matches 'resource'.

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