Skip to main content
Glama

ALM X++ MCP Server

by io.github.alimbenhelal-pro

get_object_details

Read-onlyIdempotent

WHEN: you know the EXACT object name. Triggers: user gives an exact name like 'SalesTable', 'CustTable', 'VendInvoiceJour', any PascalCase D365 object name. Get complete details: all fields, methods, relations, indexes, source code, and metadata. COST NOTE: this returns the FULL object and can be very large (100KB+ for big tables/forms like SalesLine). If you ONLY need relations / FK / DeleteActions / data sources / who-references, call get_relation_graph instead -- it is O(1) and roughly 6x lighter (no source code). Reserve get_object_details for when you genuinely need field details, method bodies, or source code. Also merges live disk source when a custom model path is configured (disk takes priority). Pass methodName to get the FULL body of a specific method -- without it, only signatures are returned. Calling twice -- first without methodName to get the full structure and method table, then again with a specific methodName for its full body -- is the CORRECT and INTENDED two-step pattern. Do NOT call a third time for the same object. DISAMBIGUATION: when a name exists as several AOT types (e.g. a Table AND a Form both named 'SalesLine'), this returns the PRIMARY type (Table/Class/Entity before the much heavier Form) and notes the others -- pass aotType (e.g. 'AxTable', 'AxForm', or shorthand 'table'/'form'/'class') to pick a specific one. This prevents dumping the heaviest object and truncating the rest. NOT for searching -- use search_d365_code when the name is uncertain. NOT for listing a model's objects -- use list_objects for that.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
aotTypeNoOptional: AOT type to disambiguate when several objects share the name, e.g. 'AxTable', 'AxForm', 'AxClass' (shorthand 'table'/'form'/'class'/'enum'/'edt'/'view'/'entity' also accepted). When omitted and the name is ambiguous, the primary type (Table/Class/Entity before Form) is returned with a note listing the others.
methodNameNoOptional: specific method name to return full body for, e.g. 'send', 'run', 'validate'. When provided, returns the complete method source instead of the signature table.
objectNameYesThe exact object name, e.g. 'SalesTable', 'VendInvoiceApprovalConfig', 'ALMAlternativeItemsTable'

TDQS

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, but the description goes far beyond by disclosing the potentially very large response (100KB+), the merged live disk source behavior with disk priority, the difference between signature-only and full method body output, and the primary-type selection behavior for ambiguous names. These are critical behavioral traits not visible in the schema or annotations.

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 dense but well-organized, front-loading the critical WHEN trigger and cost warning before parameter details. Every sentence contributes unique guidance—performance trade-offs, disambiguation behavior, alternatives, and prohibited uses—with no filler or repetition.

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?

Given the tool's complexity, the absence of an output schema, and the risk of huge responses, the description is remarkably complete. It covers triggers, exclusions, alternatives, parameter behavior, performance costs, ambiguity handling, and the intended multi-call workflow, leaving little for an agent to infer.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Even though schema description coverage is 100%, the description adds significant meaning: methodName returns the full body rather than signatures and supports a two-step pattern; aotType disambiguates and accepts shorthand; objectName must be exact. This goes well beyond the schema's field descriptions and materially improves correct invocation.

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Get complete details: all fields, methods, relations, indexes, source code, and metadata.' It also distinguishes itself from get_relation_graph, search_d365_code, and list_objects, making the tool's purpose unambiguous even among many siblings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly states when to use the tool ('WHEN: you know the EXACT object name'), when not to use it ('NOT for searching', 'NOT for listing a model's objects'), and names the exact alternatives (get_relation_graph, search_d365_code, list_objects). It also gives the intended two-step usage pattern and warns against calling a third time.

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
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

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.

Naming Consistency4/5

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.

Tool Count3/5

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.

Completeness4/5

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.

Resources