Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Dynamics 365 MCP Server

Dynamics 365 MCP Server

by Kenny-666
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

apply_isolated_form_release

Destructive

Recompute isolated form release preview and save only to isolated organization with ETag protection. Requires preview hash and isolation acknowledgment; no export or publication.

Instructions

Recompute the isolated form release preview and save only to the isolated organization with ETag protection. Requires preview hash and explicit isolation acknowledgment; no export or publication.

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>",
      "logical_name": "<logical_name>",
      "source_form_id": "<source_form_id>",
      "target_form_id": "<target_form_id>",
      "isolated_form_id": "<isolated_form_id>",
      "solution_unique_name": "<solution_unique_name>",
      "source_hash": "<source_hash>",
      "target_hash": "<target_hash>",
      "candidate_hash": "<candidate_hash>",
      "candidate_xml": "<candidate_xml>",
      "approved_paths": "<approved_paths>",
      "expected_hash": "<expected_hash>",
      "acknowledge_isolated_write": "<acknowledge_isolated_write>"
    },
    "name": "apply_isolated_form_release"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
source_hashYes
target_hashYes
logical_nameYes
candidate_xmlYes
expected_hashYes
approved_pathsYes
candidate_hashYes
source_form_idYes
source_profileYes
target_form_idYes
target_profileYes
isolated_form_idYes
isolated_profileYes
environment_profileNoOptional named environment profile for this call; omit to use the configured default.
solution_unique_nameYes
acknowledge_isolated_writeYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.3.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The description adds real behavior beyond the annotations: ETag/hash protection, an explicit isolation acknowledgment gate, and confinement to the isolated org. It does not say what existing isolated-form state gets overwritten (relevant given destructiveHint=true) or what happens on hash mismatch, so the destructive profile is only partially fleshed out.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, and the safety constraint is close behind. No filler, though compressing the 15 required inputs into a single clause leaves the reader needing the schema.

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 16-parameter, non-idempotent, destructive write with no output schema, the description covers the intent and the two gating concepts but leaves most of the input contract undocumented. An agent could not construct a valid call from this description alone.

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 6% across 16 parameters, so the description must carry the load, and it explains only two of them in loose prose ('preview hash', 'isolation acknowledgment'). The source/target/isolated profile trio, the three form IDs, approved_paths, and candidate_xml are entirely unexplained in both places.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Recompute the isolated form release preview and save only to the isolated organization') and explicitly rules out export and publication, which separates it from siblings like export_isolated_form_release and publish_isolated_release_component. It does not, however, name those siblings or clarify its relationship to preview_isolated_form_release.

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 'no export or publication' clause and the required preview hash imply this is a commit step that must follow a preview, giving implicit ordering guidance. But it never names preview_isolated_form_release as the prerequisite or states what conditions make this call appropriate versus re-previewing.

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