teams-mcp-server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

list_chats

Retrieve recent Microsoft Teams chats with participant names and details like chat ID, topic, type, and members. For channel conversations, use list_teams and list_channels.

Instructions

List recent chats with participant names.

Does NOT include channel conversations - use list_teams + list_channels for those. Returns chat id, topic, type, and member names.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_chats"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.5.0Oct 16, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose useful behavioral context: what the tool does not cover (channels) and what fields come back (chat id, topic, type, member names). However it leaves out auth expectations, pagination behavior, and what 'recent' actually means, which is a meaningful gap for an unannotated tool.

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?

Three short, front-loaded lines with zero filler; the scoping constraint follows the core purpose. The 'Returns ...' sentence is slightly redundant against the existing output schema but not wasteful.

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?

Purpose, negative scope, and routing are complete, and return values need not be explained since an output schema exists. The only real gap is the undocumented 'limit' parameter, which is minor for a simple read 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 description coverage is 0% for the single 'limit' parameter, so the description must compensate and does not. 'Recent chats' loosely implies a bounded, default-limited result, but the meaning, allowed range, and effect of 'limit' are never stated.

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 and resource ('List recent chats') and immediately scopes it with participant names. The explicit exclusion of channel conversations further distinguishes it from siblings like list_channel_messages and list_teams, so an agent can identify it without opening the schema.

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?

Names the excluded case ('Does NOT include channel conversations') and routes the agent to the correct alternative ('use list_teams + list_channels for those'). This is an explicit when-not plus named alternatives, the top of the scale.

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