onenote-mcp

onenote_create_page

Create a new page in a OneNote notebook by providing the notebook ID, title, and optional HTML content. Use it to add notes, meeting records, or formatted text directly to any notebook.

Instructions

Create a new page in a OneNote notebook.

Return Format

Confirmation string: "✅ Page '' created successfully with ID: <id>".

Examples

onenote_create_page(notebook_id="0-ABC123...", title="Meeting Notes", content="Notes...")

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": {
      "notebook_id": "<notebook_id>",
      "title": "<title>"
    },
    "name": "onenote_create_page"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`title`	Yes	The title of the new page
`content`	No	Optional HTML content for the page
`notebook_id`	Yes	The ID of the notebook to create the page in

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv1.0.4Sep 29, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With empty annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses the return format via an example, which is useful, but doesn't mention permissions, whether creation is idempotent, or what happens on failure. The example adds some clarity but leaves gaps.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core action, followed by a concise return format section and an example. No superfluous text, though the example could be slightly tighter.

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?

Given three parameters, full schema coverage, and an output schema, the description is adequate. It includes an example call and return format, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, which is a minor omission for a straightforward creation tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The example shows the parameters in use, but the description does not add semantic meaning beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Create a new page in a OneNote notebook'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like onenote_append_page or onenote_list_pages.

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?

The usage context is implied by the name and siblings (e.g., use this to create, not append), but there are no explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives or prerequisites stated in the description.

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