Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Dynamics 365 MCP Server

Dynamics 365 MCP Server

by Kenny-666
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

create_onprem_domain_user

Destructive

Preview and create an on-premises AD/IFD domain user in a verified active Dynamics 365 business unit; a preview hash and explicit acknowledgement are required, and no passwords or roles are set.

Instructions

Preview then create a CRM on-premises AD/IFD domain user in a verified active business unit. No passwords or roles are set. Requires preview hash and explicit creation acknowledgement; unknown writes are never retried.

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": {
      "domain_name": "<domain_name>",
      "business_unit_id": "<business_unit_id>",
      "last_name": "<last_name>"
    },
    "name": "create_onprem_domain_user"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dry_runNo
last_nameYes
first_nameNo
domain_nameYes
expected_hashNo
business_unit_idYes
allow_user_creationNo
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

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Adds real context beyond the annotations: no passwords or roles are written, creation is hash-gated and acknowledgement-gated, and unknown writes are never retried — which usefully reinforces the non-idempotent, destructive annotation profile. What is missing is any statement of what the preview step returns or what happens to the call if the acknowledgement flag is omitted.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, followed by the key constraints. No padding or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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, non-idempotent mutation with eight parameters at 13% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the safety mechanics but leaves two boolean flags and the preview response undescribed. An agent could call it, but the dry_run vs. allow_user_creation interaction would be guesswork.

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 coverage is only 13% (one of eight parameters documented), so the description carries the burden. It does map 'preview hash' to expected_hash and 'explicit creation acknowledgement' to allow_user_creation, but it never disambiguates dry_run from allow_user_creation, nor explains domain_name format or how business_unit_id is validated as active.

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+resource: 'create a CRM on-premises AD/IFD domain user', with the scoping qualifier 'in a verified active business unit'. It implicitly separates itself from role/profile siblings by noting 'No passwords or roles are set', but it never names a sibling tool explicitly, so cross-tool routing still requires inference.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Gives a clear operating workflow — preview first, then create with the preview hash and an explicit creation acknowledgement — which tells an agent the call is two-phase and gated. It does not, however, say when to prefer an alternative (e.g., update_crm_user_profile or manage_user_roles) or what to do when the business unit is not verified/active.

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