F
licenseC
qualityF
maintenanceA powerful MCP server that enables AI assistants to interact with Microsoft Graph API for managing Outlook emails, Calendar events, OneDrive files, and Contacts through natural language commands.
35
56
-
m365-radar
Click on "Install Server".
Wait a few minutes for the server to deploy. Once ready, it will show a "Started" state.
In the chat, type
@followed by the MCP server name and your instructions, e.g., "@m365-radarWhat changed on the Microsoft 365 roadmap this week?"
That's it! The server will respond to your query, and you can continue using it as needed.
Here is a step-by-step guide with screenshots.
m365-radar
An MCP server and an open daily dataset for the Microsoft 365 roadmap and Azure service status.
Point an AI agent at it and ask what is coming for Intune next quarter, what changed on the roadmap this week, or whether Azure is currently degraded — without anyone opening a browser.
Why a snapshot instead of a live proxy
The roadmap API is undocumented, bot-protected and about 2 MB per request. Querying it on every tool call would be slow and fragile, so this repo does it the other way round:
A GitHub Action harvests the roadmap once a day and commits a normalised snapshot to
data/.The MCP server answers queries from that snapshot — fast, offline-capable, and unaffected if the upstream endpoint has a bad day.
The git history becomes the changelog. The diff between two daily commits is exactly what Microsoft changed on the roadmap, with nothing else in it.
That last point is the radar. git log -p -- data/roadmap.json is a complete, auditable record of roadmap movement over time.
The harvest commits every day so you can see it ran, but the commit message says which kind of day it was: data: roadmap changed … when Microsoft moved something, chore: roadmap unchanged … when they did not.
Related MCP server: m365-mcp-server
Tools
Tool | What it does |
| Free-text search with filters for product, status, cloud instance and platform |
| Full detail for one feature ID |
| Features added or updated in the last N days — newest first |
| Active Azure incidents, read live from the public status feed |
Statuses are In development, Rolling out, Launched and Cancelled. Cloud instances are Worldwide (Standard Multi-Tenant), GCC, GCC High and DoD.
Use it with Claude Code
git clone https://github.com/DimaVasilenko-Intune/m365-radar.git
cd m365-radar
npm install
npm run harvest # fetch the first snapshot
npm run build
claude mcp add m365-radar -- node "$(pwd)/dist/server.js"Any other MCP client works the same way — it is a plain stdio server:
{
"mcpServers": {
"m365-radar": {
"command": "node",
"args": ["/absolute/path/to/m365-radar/dist/server.js"]
}
}
}The dataset
data/roadmap.json is a normalised array of every published roadmap feature, sorted by ID with a fixed key order so diffs stay clean. data/meta.json records when it was harvested and the full product, platform and cloud-instance taxonomy.
Each feature carries id, title, description, status, products, cloudInstances, platforms, releasePhases, previewDate, generalAvailabilityDate, created, modified, moreInfoLink and a url deep link.
The data is Microsoft's; this repo only reshapes it. Use it for whatever you like.
Your clone does not refresh itself. This repository is updated daily, but a checkout on your machine stays at whatever commit you pulled. Every tool response reports snapshotAgeDays, and once your copy is three days old it also returns a warning telling you to git pull or run npm run harvest. Keeping it current is a pull, or a git pull on a schedule if you would rather not think about it.
Data sources
Source | Endpoint |
Microsoft 365 roadmap |
|
Azure status |
|
Be aware: the roadmap endpoint is not a documented, supported API. It returns 403 unless the request carries a browser User-Agent, and Microsoft can change or withdraw it without notice. The snapshot design means a bad upstream day costs you freshness, not availability — the harvest refuses to overwrite a good snapshot with an empty or malformed response.
No tenant data, no authentication and no Microsoft Graph calls are involved anywhere in this project. Everything here is public information.
Development
npm run harvest # refresh data/ from upstream
npm run dev # run the server from source
npm run build # compile to dist/License
MIT © Dima Vasilenko
Available Tools
4 toolsget_azure_statusGet current Azure service statusA
Active Azure service incidents, read live from the public status feed. An empty list means Azure is reporting no active issues.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
TDQS
A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It goes beyond a simple statement by explaining that the data is 'read live from the public status feed' and that an empty list means no active issues. This provides useful context about data freshness and result interpretation, though it stops short of detailing rate limits or exact incident definitions.
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?
The description is two short sentences, immediately identifying the tool's purpose and the meaning of the expected result. There is no filler or redundant content, and the key information is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with no parameters and no output schema. The description fully covers what the tool does and what the result signifies. It is complete for its intended use case.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter behavior, and indeed there is nothing to explain. No additional parameter semantics are required.
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?
The description clearly states the tool's function: retrieving active Azure service incidents from a live public feed. The verb 'read' and resource 'active Azure service incidents' are specific, and it is easily distinguished from sibling tools (search_roadmap, get_roadmap_item, list_recent_changes) which relate to roadmaps and changes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for checking current Azure service health by describing the data source and the interpretation of an empty list. It does not explicitly list alternatives or exclusions, but its clarity and the lack of alternative tools for the same purpose make the intended usage evident.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_roadmap_itemGet one roadmap featureA
Full detail for a single roadmap feature, by its numeric feature ID.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Roadmap feature ID |
TDQS
A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It adds that the output is 'full detail' and that the ID is numeric, but it does not disclose behavior such as error handling for invalid IDs or the exact response shape. This is a minimal but adequate disclosure for a simple read operation.
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?
The description is a single concise sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose and the key parameter. No unnecessary information or repetition.
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?
With no output schema, 'full detail' gives only a vague idea of the return content. Missing details like not-found behavior and response fields make it incomplete, though the tool is simple enough that the description is acceptable.
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?
The schema already describes the 'id' parameter as a 'Roadmap feature ID' with 100% coverage. The description adds only 'numeric', which is redundant with the integer type. No new semantic information beyond the schema is provided.
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?
The description clearly states the tool returns 'Full detail for a single roadmap feature' by ID, distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_roadmap and list_recent_changes which handle collections or searches.
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?
The description implies you should use this tool when you have a known numeric feature ID, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or contexts like searching when the ID is unknown. No exclusion criteria are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_recent_changesList recently changed roadmap featuresA
Features added or updated in the last N days, newest first. This is the radar: what moved on the roadmap since you last looked.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| days | No | Look-back window, default 7 | |
| limit | No | Default 50 | |
| product | No | Optional product filter |
TDQS
A4/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that results are filtered by a time window and sorted newest first, which is useful. However, it does not mention return format, pagination, authentication, or other edge-case behaviors, leaving some gaps for a tool with no annotation support.
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?
The description is two sentences with no fluff. The first sentence is direct and informative, and the second adds a helpful metaphor without redundancy. Every word earns its place.
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 low-complexity tool with three optional parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the core function and usage context. It lacks explicit details about response content, but the title and description make it clear the tool returns changed features, which is sufficient for a simple list operation.
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?
The schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are already well-documented. The description only loosely references the 'days' parameter with 'last N days' and does not add extra meaning for 'limit' or 'product'. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema handles parameter semantics.
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?
The description clearly states the tool lists features added or updated in the last N days, with a specific verb (list) and resource (recently changed roadmap features). It distinguishes itself from siblings like search_roadmap and get_roadmap_item by focusing on recency and change detection, making the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'This is the radar: what moved on the roadmap since you last looked' provides clear context for when to use the tool—as a periodic check for updates. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the context is strong enough given the sibling tool names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_roadmapSearch the Microsoft 365 roadmapA
Search roadmap features by free text and filter by product, status, cloud instance or platform. Returns summaries; call get_roadmap_item for the full description.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Default 20 | |
| query | No | Free text matched against title and description | |
| status | No | Exact roadmap status | |
| product | No | e.g. "Microsoft Teams", "Outlook", "Intune" | |
| platform | No | e.g. "Web", "Desktop", "Mac", "Android", "iOS" | |
| cloudInstance | No | e.g. "Worldwide (Standard Multi-Tenant)", "GCC", "GCC High", "DoD" |
TDQS
A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds 'Returns summaries; call get_roadmap_item for the full description,' which reveals a key behavioral trait: results are condensed rather than full entries. It does not mention pagination, ordering, or rate limits, but for a search tool, this is reasonably informative.
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?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the primary verb and resource, and every phrase adds value. It succinctly conveys what the tool does, how to filter, and what output to expect, with no redundancy.
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 search tool with 6 optional parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the core behavior: searching, filtering, and returning summaries. It also points to get_roadmap_item for full details, completing the workflow. It could mention default limits or result ordering, but these are minor gaps given the simplicity of the 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?
The input schema already provides comprehensive descriptions for all 6 parameters, covering 100% of them. The description's mention of filtering by product, status, cloud instance, or platform merely restates the schema and adds no new semantic detail. Since schema coverage is high, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Search roadmap features by free text and filter by product, status, cloud instance or platform.' This specifies a distinct verb (search), a resource (roadmap features), and the scope (free text and filters), effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_roadmap_item, which retrieves full details.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit guidance for when to use an alternative: 'call get_roadmap_item for the full description.' This clarifies a specific use case where search is not sufficient. However, it does not explicitly mention when to avoid search in favor of list_recent_changes or get_azure_status, though the context makes it implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Tool Schema Changelog
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
4 tool updates
v0.1.0- First observed
get_azure_status - First observed
get_roadmap_item - First observed
list_recent_changes - First observed
search_roadmap
TDQS
A4.2/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a distinct purpose: searching roadmap summaries, fetching full details by ID, listing recent changes, and checking Azure status. No two tools overlap in functionality.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case: search_roadmap, get_roadmap_item, list_recent_changes, get_azure_status. No deviations.
Tool Count5/5
Four tools is well-scoped for a radar-focused server: search, detail, recent changes, and status. Each tool earns its place without redundancy.
Completeness4/5
The set covers the core workflows: finding roadmap items, getting full details, seeing recent updates, and checking Azure health. Minor gap is the lack of a non-searchable 'list all roadmap items' tool, but search_roadmap can likely serve that purpose.
Maintenance
ActivityMaintained
ResponsivenessNo issues
Resources
Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.
Looking for Admin?
If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.
Related MCP Connectors
Official Microsoft MCP Server to query Microsoft Entra data using natural language
- UnifAPIOAuthcom.unifapi
Hosted MCP server for live public-data APIs and Skills for AI agents.
Driflyte MCP server which lets AI assistants query topic-specific knowledge from web and GitHub.
The MCP server for Azure DevOps, bringing the power of Azure DevOps directly to your agents.
Related MCP Servers
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityAmaintenanceA production-ready MCP server that provides secure, delegated access to Microsoft 365 services including Email, SharePoint, OneDrive, and Calendar. It enables AI models to search messages, browse files, manage calendar events, and parse document contents using OAuth 2.1 authentication.MIT
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceAn MCP server bridging AI agents with enterprise productivity suites, enabling Jira automation, Microsoft Graph integration, and web research via Tavily.-
- AlicenseAqualityCmaintenanceA Python-based MCP server that enables AI agents to query the Microsoft 365 Roadmap programmatically.11MIT
Latest Blog Posts
- Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)By Om-Shree-0709 on .mcpAgent IdentityOAuth 2.1
- Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an InternBy Om-Shree-0709 on .Agent IdentityMCP SecurityOAuth Delegation
- Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)By Om-Shree-0709 on .Agentic AiPrompt InjectionWebAssembly
MCP directory API
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/DimaVasilenko-Intune/m365-radar'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server