Microsoft Graph MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

get_site_by_url

Fetches a SharePoint site using its hostname and site path, enabling accurate lookup of the site for Microsoft 365 administration.

Instructions

Get a SharePoint site by hostname and path

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": {
      "hostname": "<hostname>",
      "site_path": "<site_path>"
    },
    "name": "get_site_by_url"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`hostname`	Yes	The SharePoint hostname (e.g., contoso.sharepoint.com)
`site_path`	Yes	The site path (e.g., sites/marketing)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Nov 2, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it only implies a read via the verb 'Get'. It says nothing about what happens when the hostname or path is invalid, whether access permissions are required, or what object is returned, all of which matter for a no-annotation tool.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

One short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and with zero filler. Its brevity edges into under-specification, but nothing in it is wasted or buried.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a two-parameter read tool with fully documented schema fields and no output schema, the definition is minimally sufficient to call the tool. Missing is any note on failure modes or return shape, which matters because there are no annotations to cover that ground.

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% and both parameters carry example-formatted descriptions ('contoso.sharepoint.com', 'sites/marketing'), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no further meaning about path formatting or how hostname and site_path combine.

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 ('Get') and resource ('SharePoint site') plus the lookup keys used, which is more than a restatement of the name. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling get_site or list_sites, leaving the agent to guess which site-retrieval tool applies to its situation.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is only implied: 'by hostname and path' suggests this is the tool for retrieving one known site, in contrast to list_sites. No explicit when-to-use, when-not, or reference to alternatives such as get_site or get_root_site is given.

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