outpost

teams_workspace_write

Write text files (markdown, CSV, plain text) to a shared workspace for distribution in Microsoft Teams. Avoids overwriting binary files.

Instructions

Write a text file to the workspace directory for sharing via Teams.

For text-based formats only (markdown, CSV, plain text, etc.). Do not use this to create or overwrite binary files (DOCX, XLSX, PPTX, PDF) — use teams_workspace_extract to read those instead.

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": {
      "filename": "<filename>",
      "content": "<content>"
    },
    "name": "teams_workspace_write"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`filename`	Yes	Name of the file to write (e.g. 'notes.md', 'data.csv')
`content`	Yes	Text content to write

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.2May 29, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided, so the description must carry behavioral info. It states it writes text files and warns against binaries, but lacks details on overwriting behavior, error handling, or permissions. Adequate but could be more comprehensive.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and no superfluous language. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Covers purpose and restrictions clearly. Lacks explicit mention of overwrite behavior or output details, but an output schema exists to handle that. For a write tool, it is largely complete.

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% and descriptions clearly define filename and content. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only noting text-based formats implicitly. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the action (write a text file), the resource (workspace directory), and the purpose (sharing via Teams). It also distinguishes from sibling tool teams_workspace_extract by explicitly excluding binary files.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Provides explicit guidance on when to use (text-based formats) and when not to use (binary files), with a direct reference to the alternative tool teams_workspace_extract.

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