Microsoft Business Central MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.1.4
Disambiguation4/5
The tools are mostly distinct, targeting schema, listing, field-based retrieval, and CRUD operations. However, list_items and get_items_by_field both retrieve items, which could cause confusion without careful reading.
Naming Consistency4/5
Naming follows a verb_noun pattern (get_schema, list_items, create_item, update_item, delete_item). The only inconsistency is using 'list' for one retrieval and 'get' for another, but the pattern remains readable.
Tool Count5/5
Six tools are appropriate for the server's purpose, providing a focused set for item management plus schema lookup without unnecessary bloat.
Completeness5/5
The toolkit covers the full lifecycle of items (create, update, delete, list, fetch by field) and includes schema access, leaving no obvious gaps for basic Business Central item operations.
Average 3/5 across 6 of 6 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 1 commit in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure, but it only states the action without any side effects, permission requirements, or consequences. There is no mention of what happens on success, whether the operation is irreversible, or any rate limits. The description adds zero behavioral context beyond the obvious mutation implied by 'create'.
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 a single clear sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately front-loaded with the action. However, it is so terse that it omits critical context, but that is a completeness issue rather than a conciseness failure.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description should explain how to use the resource and item_data parameters, but it does not. The nested object item_data is undefined, and the agent must guess what fields to provide. The existence of sibling get_schema tool could mitigate this, but the description itself is incomplete for a create operation with a flexible resource parameter.
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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, so both parameters (resource and item_data) are already documented. The description adds no additional meaning about parameter values, format, or relationships. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting, and the description does not contradict or enrich it.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create a new item in Business Central' clearly states the verb (create) and resource (item), distinguishing it from update/delete/list siblings. It is slightly tautological with the tool name but adds the Business Central context. No ambiguity about the operation's intent.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_item or delete_item. The usage is only implied by the name 'create_item', but there is no explicit context about prerequisites or decision criteria. The sibling tools are listed but not referenced in the description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description gives no behavioral details beyond the obvious destructive action. It does not disclose irreversibility, cascading effects, authorization needs, or return behavior, leaving the agent without critical context.
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 extremely concise and front-loaded, with no wasted words. However, it is under-specified, which prevents a 5; but as a simple, clear sentence it earns a solid score.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-parameter delete tool with complete schema, the description is minimally viable. But with no annotations, no output schema, and no behavioral context, it lacks the additional detail needed for full completeness (e.g., permanence, error handling, return values).
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% with both parameters (resource, item_id) described. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Delete an item from Business Central' clearly identifies the action (delete), the resource (item), and the system. It distinguishes from sibling tools because there is no other delete tool; however, it is somewhat generic and just restates the name with minimal extra context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives. It does not mention that deletion is permanent, when a soft-delete might be preferred, or any prerequisites. This fails to direct the agent away from inappropriate use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the general action without mentioning return format, pagination, error handling, case sensitivity, or any side effects. For a read operation, this is a significant gap in what the agent can expect.
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 a single concise sentence that accurately names the operation. It is front-loaded and devoid of filler words, achieving maximum efficiency with minimal waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of annotations, output schema, and behavior details, the description is too sparse. It does not explain what 'matching' entails, what resources are supported, or what the response structure looks like. Sibling tools provide context that CRUD operations exist, but this description alone is insufficient for an agent to fully leverage the tool.
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?
The input schema already describes all parameters (resource, field, value) with 100% coverage. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline but does not enhance understanding. The schema descriptions are sufficient for basic understanding, but no additional semantic context is provided.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get items matching a field value' clearly states the tool's function: retrieving items based on a field value. It uses a specific verb and resource, and the name reinforces the purpose. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from list_items or other siblings, which could lead to ambiguity, but the filtering intent is clear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_items or other sibling tools. The description gives no context for scenarios where filtering is preferred over listing all items, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. This is a minimal viable hint but lacks explicit direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations available, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Get schema information' without mentioning that it is read-only, what the return format looks like, authentication requirements, or any potential side effects. The description adds no behavioral context beyond what the tool name implies.
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 a single sentence that starts with the verb 'Get', making it direct and front-loaded. Every word contributes to conveying the core purpose, and there is no wasted language.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description must explain what the tool returns and how it fits into the broader workflow. It only says 'schema information' without elaborating on the structure or usage context, which is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's output and role among sibling tools.
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?
The input schema fully describes the single parameter 'resource' with examples, achieving 100% schema coverage. The description does not add additional meaning to the parameter, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate. No extra clarification is needed.
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 clearly states the action (get schema information) and the resource (a Business Central resource), which distinguishes it from sibling tools that operate on items. The verb 'Get' is specific and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this tool is useful for discovering the structure of a resource before performing item operations, nor does it name any alternative tools. This leaves the agent without contextual direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations available, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Update an existing item', which implies mutation but doesn't explain partial vs. full updates, error handling for non-existent items, or authentication requirements. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.
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 a single concise sentence that immediately conveys the core purpose. There is no redundant information or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 required params, nested object, no output schema), the description is too minimal. It doesn't cover expected behavior, return values, or edge cases, which could lead to incorrect tool usage.
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% because each parameter has a description. However, the tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 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 clearly states the action (update) and resource (item in Business Central), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_item, delete_item, and list_items. It's direct and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided regarding when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites such as the item needing to exist, nor does it suggest sibling tools for related operations. This is a significant gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does indicate a read-only operation via 'Get' and mentions filtering/pagination (behavioral capabilities), but it doesn't disclose response format, default pagination limits, or any potential side effects. This is a minimal but sufficient disclosure for a simple list operation.
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 a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point. No filler or redundant content; it perfectly balances brevity with essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list tool with fully documented parameters, the description is adequate. However, it lacks context on when to use the tool versus siblings, and does not mention anything about the return value or response structure (though no output schema exists). It is a minimally complete description for a basic operation.
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?
The schema has full descriptions for all 4 parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of 'filtering and pagination' aligns with the 'filter', 'top', and 'skip' parameters but adds no new semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Get' with the resource 'items from Business Central' and mentions filtering and pagination capabilities. It clearly states what the tool does, but it does not differentiate itself from the sibling tool 'get_items_by_field', which likely performs a similar retrieval function in a different manner.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_items_by_field' or 'get_schema'. The mention of filtering and pagination implies a use case, but there is no direct statement of context, prerequisites, or exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![Mcp-Business-Central MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/EdwardHayes91/Mcp-Business-Central/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/EdwardHayes91/Mcp-Business-Central)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![Mcp-Business-Central MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/EdwardHayes91/Mcp-Business-Central/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/EdwardHayes91/Mcp-Business-Central)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/EdwardHayes91/Mcp-Business-Central'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server