Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Dynamics 365 MCP Server

Dynamics 365 MCP Server

by Kenny-666
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

change_role_privilege

Destructive

Preview and then add or remove a single native Dataverse role privilege at an explicit depth, with acknowledgements and no inferred effective access.

Instructions

Preview then add or remove one native role privilege with an explicitly supported depth. Uses current CSDL, rereads the role privilege, requires both acknowledgements and does not infer effective access. Existing different depths must be removed separately.

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": {
      "role_id": "<role_id>",
      "privilege_id": "<privilege_id>",
      "action": "<action>"
    },
    "name": "change_role_privilege"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
depthNo
actionYes
dry_runNo
role_idYes
privilege_idYes
expected_hashNo
environment_profileNoOptional named environment profile for this call; omit to use the configured default.
allow_unprotected_writeNo
allow_role_privilege_changeNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.1.2

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The annotations already mark this as destructive, non-idempotent, and not read-only. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations: preview-first behavior, use of current CSDL, rereading the role privilege, requiring both acknowledgements, and not inferring effective access.

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 dense and front-loaded, with no filler. The second sentence is long but every clause adds operational detail about behavior and constraints.

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 destructive 9-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers workflow and safety context well. It remains incomplete because many parameters lack semantic explanation and there is no indication of return behavior or error handling.

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 description coverage is only 11%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for depth, action, preview, and 'both acknowledgements' tied to the allow flags, but it leaves role_id, privilege_id, expected_hash, and the individual acknowledgement flags unexplained.

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 states a specific verb and resource: preview then add or remove one native role privilege at an explicitly supported depth. It clearly distinguishes mutation from a simple read, but it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives such as list_role_privileges or manage_security_role.

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?

It implies a preview-then-commit workflow and warns that existing different depths must be removed separately. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus sibling tools like manage_security_role or list_role_privileges, nor does it state prerequisites.

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