Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Dynamics 365 MCP Server

Dynamics 365 MCP Server

by Kenny-666
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

check_model_configuration

Run read-only checks on main forms, required fields, and public view XML to validate model configuration. Results depend on CRM permissions and cannot evaluate all runtime rules.

Instructions

Read-only checks for main forms, required fields and public view XML. Results depend on CRM permissions and cannot evaluate all runtime rules.

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": {
      "entity_logical_name": "<entity_logical_name>"
    },
    "name": "check_model_configuration"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
entity_logical_nameYes
environment_profileNoOptional named environment profile for this call; omit to use the configured default.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.1.2

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does supply meaningful behavior: it declares the operation read-only, warns that results depend on CRM permissions, and discloses that runtime rules are not fully evaluated. It stops short of describing output shape, granularity, or how partial/permission-limited results are surfaced, which matters for a diagnostic tool with no output schema.

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 tightly written sentences with the core capability front-loaded and the caveats second. No filler, though the second sentence bundles two distinct limitations that could be clearer as separate clauses.

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 read-only inspection tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers scope and limitations adequately but leaves the return values, the meaning of the required entity identifier, and the relationship to sibling metadata/UI inspection tools unaddressed.

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?

The description says nothing about either parameter. Only environment_profile has schema documentation (50% coverage), while the required entity_logical_name has no description anywhere, so an agent gets no help on what form the entity name should take (logical vs. display name).

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 ('Read-only checks') and enumerates the resources inspected: main forms, required fields, and public view XML. An agent can distinguish it from the sibling mutators like edit_model_form or edit_model_view, though it never names a closest alternative such as get_model_definition or list_model_ui_components.

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?

Usage is implied (validate model UI configuration before editing or publishing), and the 'cannot evaluate all runtime rules' caveat signals a boundary condition. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement and no routing to or from the many sibling inspection tools.

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