teams-mcp-server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

get_user

Search Microsoft Teams users by display name or email prefix to retrieve IDs, email addresses, and job titles for mentions, presence checks, or chat creation.

Instructions

Find users whose display name or email address starts with query.

Prefix match only (Graph startsWith on displayName or mail): a surname or a fragment from the middle of a name finds nothing. Returns up to limit users with id, display name, email (mail, else userPrincipalName) and job title. The id is what get_user_presence and mention user_id take; create_chat takes the email.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No
`query`	Yes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.5.0Oct 16, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it discloses the prefix-only matching gotcha (surname or middle fragment finds nothing), the fields returned, and the limit behavior. It omits auth/permission requirements, but for a read lookup those are minor.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then the prefix-match caveat, then return/consumption details — a sensible ordering with no filler. The parenthetical Graph reference is slightly technical but earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not strictly required, yet the description still adds useful field-level context. Combined with the matching semantics, it is essentially complete for calling the tool; only auth expectations are absent.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate and largely does: it defines `query` as a prefix match over displayName/mail and describes `limit` as the cap on returned users. It does not restate the default (10) or any maximum, leaving a small gap.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Find users') and immediately scopes it to display name or email prefix. It further distinguishes itself by naming the sibling tools that consume its output (get_user_presence, mention, create_chat), so an agent can place it in the workflow.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Explains the intended use case (resolving a user id or email for downstream calls) and names the consumers, which effectively signals when to reach for it. It does not state explicit when-not-to-use conditions or a named alternative lookup tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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