Microsoft Graph MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

list_sites

Retrieve SharePoint sites in a Microsoft 365 tenant and optionally filter results by site name to locate relevant sites.

Instructions

List SharePoint sites in the tenant. Optionally search by name.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_sites"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`search`	No	Optional search term to filter sites by name

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Nov 2, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral load. 'List' reliably signals a read-only operation and the tenant scope is disclosed, but nothing is said about result volume, pagination, or whether all sites or only accessible ones are returned — meaningful gaps for an enumeration tool with no annotation coverage.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the optional filter second. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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?

The tool is simple (one optional param, no nesting, no output schema), and the description covers the essentials for invocation. It stops short on two things an agent would benefit from: expected result scale/pagination and how it relates to the single-site getters among its siblings.

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 the schema already states the parameter is an optional name filter. The description's 'search by name' restates rather than extends that, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description gives a specific verb and resource ('List SharePoint sites') and scopes it to the tenant, which is more than the name alone conveys. It doesn't distinguish itself from sibling retrieval tools like get_site, get_site_by_url, or get_root_site, but the listing scope is unambiguous.

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?

'Optionally search by name' implies the search use case, so an agent can infer that this tool serves both full enumeration and name filtering. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over get_site_by_url or get_site when a specific site is already known.

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