Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Dynamics 365 MCP Server

Dynamics 365 MCP Server

by Kenny-666
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

apply_form_solution_package

Destructive

Preview and apply a Dynamics 365 form solution package across profiles, validating component scope and isolating unrelated changes before release execution.

Instructions

Preview selected form and candidate components. Execution is disabled until unrelated changes can be isolated and release scope verified.

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>",
      "logical_name": "<logical_name>",
      "source_form_id": "<source_form_id>",
      "target_form_id": "<target_form_id>",
      "solution_unique_name": "<solution_unique_name>",
      "components": "<components>"
    },
    "name": "apply_form_solution_package"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dry_runNo
componentsYes
logical_nameYes
expected_hashNo
source_form_idYes
source_profileYes
target_form_idYes
target_profileYes
environment_profileNoOptional named environment profile for this call; omit to use the configured default.
solution_unique_nameYes
allow_unprotected_writeNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.3.0

TDQS

C2.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, so the agent knows this is a non-idempotent write. The description instead leads with 'Preview', which pushes the reader toward a read-only mental model, and it never says what is actually written, what 'allow_unprotected_write' unlocks, or that a dry-run path exists via the dry_run flag. The remaining behavioral signal is a vague conditional rather than concrete consequences, and the preview framing sits in tension with the destructive annotation.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

Two short sentences with no filler, so it is tight. However, the front-loaded clause is the misleading 'Preview' framing, which puts the wrong expectation first for a destructive tool.

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?

For an 11-parameter, 7-required, destructive, non-idempotent tool with no output schema and almost no schema documentation, the description is far too thin. An agent cannot determine the execution mode, what gets mutated on the target profile, or when the operation will be refused.

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 9% across 11 parameters, and only environment_profile carries a description, so the description must compensate and does not. It mentions 'selected form' and 'candidate components' only obliquely, never touching dry_run, expected_hash, allow_unprotected_write, solution_unique_name, source/target profiles, or the numeric component_type enum values (2, 9, 60, 61).

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

Purpose2/5

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

The tool is named apply_form_solution_package, but the description frames the operation as 'Preview selected form and candidate components', which reads as the opposite of apply. The second sentence only conditionally reopens execution ('disabled until...'), leaving the agent unsure whether this applies changes or merely previews them. The resource ('form solution package' / components) is identifiable, but the verb is muddled.

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 on when to use this versus the plainly related siblings plan_form_solution_package, inspect_form_solution_package, preview_isolated_form_release, audit_form_release_package, or apply_isolated_form_release. The gating phrase 'until unrelated changes can be isolated and release scope verified' gestures at prerequisites but never states how to satisfy them or which sibling performs that step.

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