Retrieve members of a Microsoft Teams team, returning each member's ID, display name, email, and role. Use to view or manage team membership.
List members of a Microsoft Teams team.
Returns member id, display name, email, and roles (owner/member). Use list_teams to get the team_id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| team_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the return fields (member id, display name, email, roles), which is helpful, but it does not state that this is a read-only operation, nor does it mention pagination, rate limits, or authentication requirements. The added return detail is useful but incomplete.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three short sentences that are front-loaded with the tool's purpose, then return values, then a prerequisite. Every sentence adds useful information with no waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple single-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description is nearly complete: it states the purpose, the return fields, and how to obtain team_id. The only minor gap is lack of explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over similar member-listing tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so by explaining how to obtain the required team_id ('Use list_teams to get the team_id'), which adds sourcing meaning beyond the bare schema. It does not describe the expected format of team_id, but the sourcing guidance is valuable.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb+resource: 'List members of a Microsoft Teams team.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like list_teams (which lists teams) and list_channel_members (which lists channel members) because the resource scope is explicit.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description includes a useful prerequisite ('Use list_teams to get the team_id'), but it does not explain when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as list_channel_members or list_chat_members. Usage is implied by the resource scope, but explicit when/when-not guidance is absent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.