The Microsoft 365 connector lets Claude retrieve Teams chats and channel discussions you can access. This connects Microsoft 365 to Claude; it does not install a bot that replies automatically in your Teams channels. Anthropic's Microsoft 365 instructions
Connect the work account that contains the discussion
You need a work Microsoft 365 account in a Microsoft Entra tenant. Personal Outlook or Hotmail accounts do not qualify. A tenant administrator must grant consent first; Team and Enterprise Claude organizations also have organization enablement. After that, open Customize > Connectors, connect Microsoft 365, and sign in with the appropriate work account.
The connector is documented for all Claude plans. Its reach follows your Microsoft permissions, so connecting cannot expose a private channel you cannot read yourself. Enable Microsoft 365 for the conversation where you need it. Connection and access conditions, checked October 24, 2026.
Ask about one decision with a bounded source set
Give the team or channel, topic, date range, and the decision you need to recover. If a message is available to you, include its link to distinguish the discussion from another project with a similar name.
Search the Teams discussions I can access about [PROJECT/TOPIC]
in [TEAM/CHANNEL] between [START DATE] and [END DATE].
Question: What was actually decided about [SPECIFIC DECISION]?
Return a chronological evidence table: message date, author,
short supporting wording, source link if available, and status
(proposal, correction, confirmed decision, or unresolved question).
Read replies around any apparent decision and look for later changes.
Keep conditions and disagreements attached to the decision.
Identify which requested sources you could not retrieve.
Then draft a short internal handover based only on that evidence.
Do not post messages, change files, or schedule anything.
Read the tool results as well as the final answer. If the response covers one chat but you requested a channel and its replies, ask which material was actually searched before calling the handover complete.
Separate a later correction from a new approval
These fictional messages are an authored review exercise, not retrieved Teams content:
| Message | Wording | What it establishes |
|---|---|---|
| Monday, Ari | “Could we move the delivery to Thursday?” | A proposed change |
| Tuesday, Bo | “Supplier confirmed Friday. Thursday is unavailable.” | Friday supplier confirmation; Thursday rejected |
| Wednesday, Ari | “Use Friday for the internal plan. Customer notification still needs approval.” | Internal planning decision; notification remains pending |
A supported handover is: “Plan internally for Friday delivery. Bo reported supplier confirmation on Tuesday. Customer notification still needs approval.” It should not say the customer has been notified or that Ari approved sending a message.
For your actual result, open the cited discussion and check the surrounding replies. Confirm that the dates refer to the same delivery, not last week's order. A later message is relevant only if it addresses the same decision.
Diagnose a missing source before filling its gap
Open the discussion yourself in Teams. Check that Claude is connected to the same work tenant and that you belong to the relevant chat or private channel. Narrow a broad request to the topic and dates you can identify. If retrieval still fails, provide a permitted excerpt and label it as supplied material; do not represent it as an independently retrieved conversation.
Admin-enabled write tools can send Teams messages, with confirmation controls for chat sends and channel posts or replies. Finding a decision does not require those actions. Keep this task at retrieval and drafting until the responsible person chooses what to communicate. Current write-tool conditions
For already-recorded discussion, checking meeting notes against the transcript addresses a related evidence problem. Here, finish with the checked handover, source messages, and the person who must resolve the notification question.