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.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| objectNameA | Yes | First object name, e.g. 'SalesTable' | |
| objectNameB | Yes | Second object name, e.g. 'PurchTable' |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds meaning about what is compared (fields, methods, signatures) but does not disclose the return shape, pagination, or behavior on missing objects. Given the annotations, this is a reasonable but not rich level of behavioral context.
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?
Two sentences with no filler. The core action and scope are front-loaded, and the use cases add useful context without redundancy.
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?
For a simple two-parameter read-only tool, the description clearly communicates purpose, scope, and typical use cases. The lack of an output schema and explicit return-value description is a minor gap, but the overall context is adequate for effective tool selection and invocation.
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?
The input schema provides 100% coverage of both parameters with descriptive examples ('SalesTable', 'PurchTable'). The description adds no parameter-specific information, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
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 states a specific verb ('Compare'), a concrete resource ('two D365 F&O objects'), and the exact dimensions being compared ('fields, methods, signatures'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like diff_model_versions, which compares versions, and get_object_details, which retrieves object details.
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 explicitly gives two clear use cases: investigating differences between standard and customisation, or between two similar tables. It does not name alternative tools or exclusions, but the context is sufficient for an agent to decide when to invoke it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have distinct purposes and clear triggers, reducing ambiguity. For example, PR-related tools are separated into analysis, listing, commenting, and dependency mapping. However, some overlap exists between find_references, find_extensions, and find_callers, which could confuse an agent without careful descriptions.
Tool names follow a consistent snake_case pattern with verb_noun structure within subgroups (e.g., ado_*, find_*, search_*, generate_*). There is no mixing of camelCase or other styles, though the variety of prefixes slightly reduces predictability.
With 38 tools, the server feels slightly over-scoped for its domain. While each tool has a specific function, the number is high compared to typical well-scoped servers (10-15 tools). Some tools like find_references and find_callers could be consolidated.
The tool set covers a broad range of D365 F&O development and DevOps tasks, including code search, analysis, security, performance, upgrades, and work item management. Minor gaps exist, such as the absence of direct object modification or batch job management, but the core workflows are well covered.