Retrieve navigation properties and relationship types (1:N, N:1, N:N) for a Dynamics 365 entity, with optional filtering by a specific related entity.
Get navigation properties (relationships) for an entity, including 1:N, N:1, and N:N relationships.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| entity_name | Yes | Logical name of the entity | |
| related_entity_name | No | Optional: Filter by a specific related entity |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds value by naming the relationship cardinalities returned (1:N, N:1, N:N), but it does not state whether the operation is read-only, what authentication or permissions are required, or what the response format looks like.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the resource and the key types of relationships returned immediately.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-parameter read tool, the description is minimally adequate. It could do more to explain how results are structured or when to choose this tool over related metadata tools, especially since there is no output schema and no annotations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description does not describe the optional related_entity_name filter or add syntax details, so it does not go beyond the schema baseline.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb and resource: it gets navigation properties for an entity. It also specifies the relationship types returned (1:N, N:1, N:N), making the purpose clear. However, it does not distinguish this tool from siblings like get_model_relationship or get_entity_metadata_summary.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_model_relationship, get_entity_metadata_summary, or create_model_relationship. The intended usage is only implied by the tool name and description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.