Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
ms-graph-dev

ms-graph-dev

by stubbedev
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

graph_explain_errors

Resolve Microsoft Graph API errors by receiving explanations and fixes for common codes like 401, 403, 404, 429, 503, and Graph-specific errors.

Instructions

Explain common Microsoft Graph API error codes and how to fix them — 401, 403, 404, 429, 503, and Graph-specific error codes like InvalidAuthenticationToken, Forbidden, and ItemNotFound.

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": "graph_explain_errors"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.11

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries burden. It states the action (explain and fix) and scope (specific error codes). Could mention that it returns textual guidance, but behavior is clear for a read-only explanation tool.

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?

Single sentence that efficiently conveys purpose and scope. No wasted words.

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?

For a parameterless explanation tool, description covers key purpose and examples. Lacks explicit mention of output format (e.g., returns text), but overall sufficient given simplicity.

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?

No parameters exist, and schema coverage is 100%. Baseline score applies. Description adds value by listing error codes, but there is no parameter elaboration needed.

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?

Description clearly states the tool explains common Graph API error codes and fixes, listing specific codes. This distinguishes it from sibling explanation tools focusing on other topics (pagination, throttling, etc.).

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?

Implies use when encountering listed error codes, but no explicit guidance on when to use alternatives like graph_explain_throttling or graph_explain_pagination. Lacks 'when not to use' comparisons.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools