Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Dynamics 365 MCP Server

Dynamics 365 MCP Server

by Kenny-666
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

add_isolated_release_field

Destructive

Preview or add a reviewed isolated field or global choice by its exact definition hash; review is required for source differences and dependencies.

Instructions

Preview or add a reviewed isolated component by its exact definition hash; source differences and dependencies require review.

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": {
      "source_profile": "<source_profile>",
      "target_profile": "<target_profile>",
      "isolated_profile": "<isolated_profile>",
      "solution_unique_name": "<solution_unique_name>",
      "logical_name": "<logical_name>",
      "attribute_name": "<attribute_name>",
      "isolated_field_id": "<isolated_field_id>",
      "current_members": "<current_members>",
      "isolated_definition_hash": "<isolated_definition_hash>"
    },
    "name": "add_isolated_release_field"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dry_runNo
logical_nameYes
expected_hashNo
attribute_nameYes
source_profileYes
target_profileYes
current_membersYes
isolated_profileYes
isolated_field_idYes
environment_profileNoOptional named environment profile for this call; omit to use the configured default.
solution_unique_nameYes
acknowledge_dependenciesNo
isolated_definition_hashYesReviewed native definition hash of the isolated field or global choice.
acknowledge_unprotected_writeNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.3.0

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful gate context (requires a reviewed hash; differences and dependencies must be reviewed) but says nothing about what acknowledge_dependencies or acknowledge_unprotected_write do or what state the write leaves behind.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler and the preview/add distinction leading. Its brevity is a virtue structurally, though it leaves substantial ground uncovered.

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

Completeness1/5

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

This is a 14-parameter, 9-required destructive mutation with dependency-acknowledgement flags and no output schema; one sentence cannot make it callable correctly. An agent would not know what current_members expects, when the acknowledge flags are needed, or what dry_run previews.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is only 14% out of 14 parameters, and the description explains just one concept, the exact definition hash (which maps to isolated_definition_hash/expected_hash). Twelve parameters, including dry_run, current_members, acknowledge_dependencies, and acknowledge_unprotected_write, carry no meaning in either place, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

It states a verb pair ("Preview or add") and a resource ("reviewed isolated component ... by its exact definition hash"), which gives an agent a general sense of the operation. But "component" is generic while the tool name and siblings (add_isolated_release_choice, add_isolated_release_webresource, stage_isolated_new_field) indicate this is specifically a field, and nothing distinguishes it from those siblings.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The clause "source differences and dependencies require review" implies preconditions and hints that preview should precede add, but it never states when to call this versus the choice/webresource variants or versus stage_isolated_new_field. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools