Microsoft Graph MCP Server

by ry-ops

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Remote

list_site_drives

Lists document libraries in a SharePoint site to help you locate and work with stored files using the site ID.

Instructions

List document libraries in a SharePoint site

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": {
      "site_id": "<site_id>"
    },
    "name": "list_site_drives"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`site_id`	Yes	The site ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Nov 2, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does not state that this is a read-only operation, whether results are paginated or permission-filtered, or what happens with an invalid site_id. The drives→document libraries terminology mapping is the only added context.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the resource is stated immediately after the verb.

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 one-parameter read-only list tool with no output schema, telling the agent it returns document libraries is largely sufficient. Minor gaps remain on pagination or permission scoping, but nothing essential to invoking it is missing.

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% (single site_id parameter), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no format, sourcing, or validation detail for site_id beyond the phrase 'in a SharePoint site'.

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 (List) and resource (document libraries in a SharePoint site), and usefully translates the tool's 'drives' naming into 'document libraries', which separates it from list_site_lists. It does not explicitly name that sibling as the alternative, 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 Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied by the required site_id scope: call this to enumerate libraries within one site. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no named alternative such as list_site_lists or list_sites, leaving the agent to infer the routing.

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