Skip to main content
Glama

ALM X++ MCP Server

by io.github.alimbenhelal-pro

search_d365_code

Read-onlyIdempotent

WHEN: object name is unknown, partial, or you need to find by concept/keyword. Search the D365 F&O knowledge base for X++ code, tables, classes, forms, views, enums, EDTs, security objects using natural language or partial names. Returns ALL chunks (metadata, Declaration, methods) for the top-scoring objects so the LLM has complete context on the first call. Lower-scoring results return a short preview. No follow-up get_object_details call is needed for top results. NOT for listing all objects in a model -- use list_objects for that. NOT when the exact name is known -- use get_object_details for that. NEVER call search_d365_code twice in the same conversation turn. If one search did not find the object, answer from what you have -- do not repeat the search. When you need context on MORE THAN ONE concept simultaneously, use batch_search instead -- it runs all queries in parallel and is faster. NEVER call for ADO items (FDD, RDD, IDD, Bug, Task, PR, WorkItem, sprint, #1234) -- use ado_* tools instead.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
topKNoMaximum number of results to return (default: 10, max: 50)
queryYesNatural language search query. Examples: 'vendor invoice approval', 'tables in ALM', 'SalesTable fields', 'security privileges for purchasing'
scopeNoOptional routing override: 'auto' (default — session/custom first, standard fallback), 'custom' (session only — fails over to standard if nothing found), 'standard' (skip session entirely), 'both' (federated, no priority).
domainNoOptional: filter results to a specific AOT type. Examples: 'AxTable', 'AxClass', 'AxForm', 'AxEnum'. Leave empty for all types.
topObjectsNoNumber of top-scoring objects whose ALL chunks are returned (default: 5, max: 20). Increase to broaden coverage, decrease for tighter focus.

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond that: top-scoring objects return ALL chunks for full context, lower-scoring results return previews, and no follow-up get_object_details call is needed for top results. It also discloses the 'never search twice in a turn' behavior and ADO exclusion, which are not visible in annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is long and uses ALL-CAPS emphasis, but nearly every sentence carries a distinct routing or behavior constraint that helps an agent choose and invoke the tool. It front-loads the primary use case ('WHEN...') before exclusions and alternatives, which is effective despite the length.

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 search tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete: it explains what is returned, how top vs lower results differ, when no follow-up is needed, and when to choose alternatives. An agent has enough context to call this tool correctly and interpret its results on the first invocation.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents query, topK, scope, domain, and topObjects. The description does not add new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides; it reinforces behavior around topObjects but does not fill any real gap. 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?

The description states a clear verb and resource: 'Search the D365 F&O knowledge base for X++ code, tables, classes, forms...' using natural language or partial names. It also names the sibling tools it is not (list_objects, get_object_details, batch_search, ado_*), making the distinction explicit without needing to open their schemas.

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 provides explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: use when object name is unknown or partial; do not use for listing all objects, for exact known names, for ADO items, or for multi-concept queries. It directly names alternatives like list_objects, get_object_details, batch_search, and ado_* tools.

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