teams-mcp-server

by ssasuoirafen

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

list_chat_members

Retrieve Microsoft Teams chat members and their IDs, display names, emails, and roles by supplying a chat ID.

Instructions

List members of a chat.

Returns member id, display name, email, and roles. Use list_chats to get the chat_id.

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": {
      "chat_id": "<chat_id>"
    },
    "name": "list_chat_members"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`chat_id`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.5.0Oct 16, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation via 'List,' but does not state permissions, side effects, rate limits, or pagination behavior. The return fields mentioned are redundant given the output schema, so behavioral context is minimal.

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 short, front-loaded with purpose, and well-structured. The middle sentence about return fields is redundant given the output schema, but the overall size is appropriate.

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?

For a simple 1-parameter list tool with an output schema, the description covers the purpose and parameter source. It neglects usage alternatives and behavioral details, but those gaps are minor given the tool's low complexity and the presence of an output schema.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It does partially by pointing to list_chats for obtaining the chat_id, which adds actionable meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it does not explain the chat_id format or constraints, so it only partially compensates.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'List members of a chat.' It implies scope by naming 'chat' as opposed to team or channel, but does not explicitly name sibling tools like list_team_members or list_channel_members. A 4 for clear purpose without explicit sibling differentiation.

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?

It provides a concrete prerequisite: 'Use list_chats to get the chat_id,' which helps an agent source the required parameter. However, it gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as list_channel_members or list_team_members. Implied usage only, so 3.

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