Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

ALM X++ MCP Server

by io.github.alimbenhelal-pro
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

compare_objects

Read-onlyIdempotent

Compare two D365 F&O objects side-by-side (fields, methods, signatures). Handy when investigating differences between standard and a customisation, or between two similar tables.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "objectNameA": "<objectNameA>",
      "objectNameB": "<objectNameB>"
    },
    "name": "compare_objects"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
objectNameAYesFirst object name, e.g. 'SalesTable'
objectNameBYesSecond object name, e.g. 'PurchTable'

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false; description adds the comparison scope but does not disclose return shape or failure behavior. With safety covered by annotations, this is acceptable.

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?

Two focused sentences that front-load the action and detail, with a usage cue in the second sentence; 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?

Enough for a simple read-only two-parameter tool: schema covers parameters and annotations cover safety. The only gap is no explicit statement of output/return value, since no output schema exists.

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?

Schema covers both parameters fully (100%) with examples; description reinforces comparison semantics but adds no syntax or additional parameter-specific guidance, so baseline 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?

Description names a specific verb ('Compare'), resource ('two D365 F&O objects'), and comparison dimensions ('fields, methods, signatures'), which clearly separates it from single-object lookup tools like get_object_details and version diff tools.

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?

States two concrete use cases ('standard vs customisation', 'two similar tables'), telling an agent when the tool is appropriate, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions.

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

All ALM X++ MCP Server toolsInspect
Try in Browser
Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources