Send a text message to any Microsoft Teams chat or group by providing the target name and message content.
Sends a text message to a specified Microsoft Teams chat or group.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| message | Yes | The text message to send. | |
| chat_name | Yes | Target contact or group name in Teams. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action but does not mention side effects, whether recipients are notified, required permissions, delivery guarantees, or what the return value indicates. For a message-sending tool, this is a notable transparency gap.
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?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence with no filler. The main action and target are front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to grasp quickly.
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?
The tool is simple with two fully schema-documented parametersaineous, so the description is mostly adequate for invoking it. However, the absence of annotations and an output schema leaves behavioral details like success/error behavior and side effects undisclosed, which an agent may need when deciding whether and how to call it.
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 100%, and the schema already explains both parameters. The description adds little beyond 'text message' and 'specified chat or group,' so it meets the baseline but does not enrich parameter meaning.
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 uses a specific verb ('sends') with a clear resource ('text message to a specified Microsoft Teams chat or group'). It clearly distinguishes this write operation from the read/list siblings like get_last_message and list_teams_chats.
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 makes the tool's use case clear: send a text message to a Teams chat or group. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but sibling tools are all read-oriented, so when to call send_teams_message versus them is readily inferable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.