bc-code-intelligence-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

ask_bc_expert

Get expert answers to Microsoft Business Central development questions. Specialists provide guidance on debugging, coding, upgrades, and testing challenges.

Instructions

Consult a BC specialist for direct expert guidance. Returns specialist instructions and relevant BC knowledge. Auto-selects best specialist or use preferred_specialist parameter. Set autonomous_mode=true for structured action plans instead of conversational responses.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "question": "<question>"
    },
    "name": "ask_bc_expert"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`context`	No	Optional context about your situation, code, or project
`question`	Yes	Your specific question or challenge about BC development
`autonomous_mode`	No	Enable autonomous agent mode: returns structured action plan instead of conversational response. For GitHub Coding Agents and automated workflows.
`preferred_specialist`	No	Optional: specific specialist to consult (will auto-detect if not provided)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.7.6Jun 4, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses return types (instructions and knowledge) and mode behavior. Does not mention potential latency or destructive actions, but reasonable for a consult 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. No fluff, every sentence adds value.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Description covers the main purpose, parameter details, and mode differentiation. Lacks explicit return format description but is sufficient for agent selection and invocation given the 100% schema coverage.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. Description adds context on auto-detection for preferred_specialist and explains autonomous_mode's effect on response format, going beyond the schema.

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?

Clearly states the tool consults a BC specialist and returns instructions and knowledge. Distinguishes from sibling tools like find_bc_knowledge and list_specialists by offering direct expert consultation.

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?

Provides guidance on auto-selection vs. preferred_specialist and explains the autonomous_mode for structured action plans. Could be improved by explicitly mentioning when to use alternatives like find_bc_knowledge.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.