Dynamics 365 MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

download_note_attachment

Reads a Dynamics 365 CRM note attachment up to 5 MiB and returns Base64 data, or writes it to a new local file when output_path is provided without overwriting existing files.

Instructions

Read a CRM note attachment up to 5 MiB. Returns Base64 unless output_path is supplied; local files are created exclusively and never overwritten.

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "download_note_attachment"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes
`output_path`	No
`environment_profile`	No	Optional named environment profile for this call; omit to use the configured default.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv1.1.2Nov 3, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false but give no detail. The description adds the 5 MiB limit, the default Base64 return, and the exclusive non-overwriting local file creation, which explains why the tool is not read-only. It omits error behavior for oversized attachments or output path conflicts.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero waste. The return-mode and file-creation behavior are front-loaded, and the size limit is stated directly.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a three-parameter download tool with no output schema, the description covers the important behavioral details: size cap, return format, and local file behavior. It still lacks error handling and sibling disambiguation, so it is strong but not fully complete.

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 33%, so the description must compensate. It meaningfully clarifies output_path by explaining Base64 vs local file creation and the no-overwrite guarantee, but it leaves the required id parameter and its UUID pattern undocumented beyond the schema.

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: read a CRM note attachment, with a 5 MiB cap. However, it does not distinguish this singular download tool from the sibling download_note_attachments (plural) or list_note_attachments, leaving some selection ambiguity.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance, and no alternative tool is named. The only implied usage is via the output_path behavior, which does not help the agent choose between this tool and its close siblings.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server