Skip to main content
Glama

ALM X++ MCP Server

by io.github.alimbenhelal-pro

get_output_page

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve the NEXT page of a previously PAGINATED tool output. When a tool result is too large for a single response, it is split losslessly into ordered pages — the footer of each page gives you a token and the next page number. Call this tool with that token to read the continuation; nothing is dropped, so you can walk every page in order and reconstruct the full result. Pages are cached only briefly (the last few large results). If the token is unknown or expired, re-run the original tool to regenerate it.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pageNoThe page number to retrieve (the previous page footer tells you the next one). Defaults to 2.
tokenYesThe pagination token from a paginated tool's footer, e.g. 'op_a1b2c3d4e5'.

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: pages are losslessly ordered, caching is brief, tokens can expire, and re-running the original tool regenerates the token. This gives the agent a clear mental model of underlying state and failure modes.

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 front-loaded with the primary action, then explains the mechanism, cache behavior, and fallback in a compact sequence. Every sentence contributes necessary operating information; there is no filler or redundancy.

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?

For a simple continuation tool, the description covers everything an agent needs: how to obtain the token, how to page through results, what happens if the token expires, and the recovery action. The absence of an output schema is acceptable because the expected output is the next page of the same paginated tool result, which the description implies sufficiently.

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 coverage is 100%: both parameters already have descriptive text, including the token example 'op_a1b2c3d4e5' and the page default. The description reinforces this by referencing the footer-provided token, but it does not add significant new meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Retrieve the NEXT page of a previously PAGINATED tool output.' It clearly distinguishes itself from the domain-specific sibling tools by framing itself as a meta-tool for paginated results, so an agent can instantly recognize its unique role.

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 clearly explains when to use the tool: when a tool result is too large and the page footer provides a token and next page number. It also gives a conditional alternative ('re-run the original tool') if the token is unknown or expired. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, but no siblings compete with this pagination function.

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