Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Dynamics 365 MCP Server

Dynamics 365 MCP Server

by Kenny-666
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

export_isolated_form_release

Preview or export an isolated solution after verifying org identities, published content, dependencies, and approved visible membership, then audit the saved package.

Instructions

Preview or export an isolated solution after checking organization identities, published content, dependency review and approved visible membership. Audit the saved package.

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>",
      "isolated_form_id": "<isolated_form_id>",
      "solution_unique_name": "<solution_unique_name>",
      "candidate_hash": "<candidate_hash>",
      "approved_members": "<approved_members>",
      "resource_hashes": "<resource_hashes>",
      "definition_evidence": "<definition_evidence>",
      "dependency_review_hash": "<dependency_review_hash>",
      "reviewed_external_dependencies": "<reviewed_external_dependencies>",
      "output_path": "<output_path>",
      "target_dependency_evidence": "<target_dependency_evidence>"
    },
    "name": "export_isolated_form_release"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dry_runNo
managedNo
output_pathYes
logical_nameYes
expected_hashNo
candidate_hashYes
source_profileYes
target_profileYes
resource_hashesYes
approved_membersYes
isolated_form_idYes
isolated_profileYes
acknowledge_exportNo
definition_evidenceYes
environment_profileNoOptional named environment profile for this call; omit to use the configured default.
solution_unique_nameYes
dependency_review_hashYes
target_dependency_evidenceYes
reviewed_external_dependenciesYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.3.0

TDQS

C2.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the bar is lower, yet the description adds almost no operational detail. It never explains that output_path writes a package to disk, what 'Audit the saved package' produces, or why the required acknowledge_export and dry_run booleans form a confirmation gate — for a 14-required-parameter export this is a significant omission.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

Two sentences, so nothing is bloated, but the middle clause is a run-on list of nouns ('organization identities, published content, dependency review and approved visible membership') that obscures rather than conveys. The export/preview distinction, the most decision-relevant fact, is buried at the start without elaboration.

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

Completeness2/5

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

With 19 parameters, 14 of them required, no output schema and no enum documentation, the description would need to explain the evidence/hash contract and the export gating. Instead it offers a single clause of prerequisites and one line about auditing, leaving the caller without the information needed to invoke a high-commitment export safely.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 5% across 19 parameters, so the description must carry the meaning, and it does not: candidate_hash, expected_hash, resource_hashes, dependency_review_hash, definition_evidence, target_dependency_evidence and acknowledge_export are all unexplained. The only faint mapping is 'approved visible membership' to approved_members, which leaves an agent unable to construct a valid call from this text.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The verb is 'preview or export' and the resource is described as 'an isolated solution', but the tool name and siblings point to an 'isolated form release'. Because a sibling named preview_isolated_form_release exists, bundling 'preview' into this description makes it hard to tell which tool actually previews and which writes, so purpose is present but muddled.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus preview_isolated_form_release, apply_isolated_form_release, or audit_form_release_package. The phrase 'after checking organization identities, published content, dependency review and approved visible membership' reads as a precondition list, but it never says whether the tool performs those checks or merely requires the caller to have already done them.

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