Microsoft Graph MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

assign_license

Assign a Microsoft 365 license to a user by providing the user ID and SKU ID, with optional disabled service plans for granular control.

Instructions

Assign a license to a user

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": {
      "user_id": "<user_id>",
      "sku_id": "<sku_id>"
    },
    "name": "assign_license"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`sku_id`	Yes	The SKU ID of the license to assign
`user_id`	Yes	The user ID or user principal name
`disabled_plans`	No	List of service plan IDs to disable (optional)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Nov 2, 2026

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and delivers almost nothing: it doesn't say whether the call is idempotent, what happens if the user already has the license, whether license seats must be available, or what permissions are required. Only the basic mutation semantics ('assign') are conveyed.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

A single short sentence with no wasted words, but it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise — there is no second sentence earning its place by adding prerequisites or side effects.

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?

This is a write operation with no annotations and no output schema, yet the description says nothing about side effects, prerequisites, or failure modes. For a mutation tool of this kind, the description is materially incomplete.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters are already documented, and the description adds no extra meaning beyond that. Baseline 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Assign a license to a user'), which is unambiguous. It implicitly complements the sibling list_available_licenses but never explicitly contrasts with it, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus list_available_licenses or other tools, and no prerequisites such as 'the sku_id must come from list_available_licenses'. The agent must infer the whole workflow.

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