List users in your Microsoft 365 organization; filter with OData or search by display name or email to locate accounts.
List users in your organization (requires delegated User.Read.All with admin consent)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| top | No | Max results | |
| filter | No | OData filter | |
| search | No | Search by displayName or mail |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.0Input schema / properties / top / maximumAdded value: +500Input schema / properties / top / minimumAdded value: +1Input schema / properties / top / typePrevious value: -"number"New value: +"integer"v1.0.7Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the description correctly focuses on supplemental context: the delegated User.Read.All permission and admin-consent requirement, which is real activation friction an agent should know. It omits pagination behavior for large directories, which keeps it from a 5.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single front-loaded sentence: purpose first, then the auth constraint in parentheses. Zero wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read-only list tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the description covers purpose and permissions, but leaves out result-volume behavior (no mention of pagination or that top caps at 500), which matters for directory listing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so top/filter/search are fully documented in the schema and the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds nothing about filter syntax (OData), search semantics, or result limits beyond what the schema already provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb+resource: 'List users in your organization'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling m365_users_profile (single user) and m365_contacts_people_list, though it never names those alternatives explicitly.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not say whether to use this vs. m365_users_profile for a single lookup, or vs. m365_contacts_people_list for people search. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.