Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Dynamics 365 MCP Server

Dynamics 365 MCP Server

by Kenny-666
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

prepare_form_node_candidate

Read-only

Builds a local form candidate by replacing explicitly approved existing form subtrees after conflict checks, without writes or packaging.

Instructions

Construct a local candidate by replacing explicitly approved existing form subtrees with conflict checks; no writes or packaging.

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": {
      "baseline": "<baseline>",
      "source": "<source>",
      "target": "<target>",
      "baseline_hash": "<baseline_hash>",
      "source_hash": "<source_hash>",
      "target_hash": "<target_hash>",
      "nodes": "<nodes>"
    },
    "name": "prepare_form_node_candidate"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nodesYes
sourceYes
targetYes
baselineYes
source_hashYes
target_hashYes
baseline_hashYes
environment_profileNoOptional named environment profile for this call; omit to use the configured default.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.3.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The description is consistent with readOnlyHint=true and adds useful behavioral context: it operates locally, performs conflict checks, and does not write or package. It does not explain what happens when conflicts are found, what the candidate output looks like, or any other failure behavior, so it adds some value beyond the annotation but not rich detail.

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?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence that states the action and then the boundary. The semicolon cleanly separates the core behavior from the 'no writes or packaging' constraint, with no filler.

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?

This is an 8-parameter candidate-building tool with low schema description coverage and no output schema. The description covers the high-level operation but omits essential input meanings and conflict-check behavior, so it is not complete enough for reliable invocation given the tool's complexity.

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?

Schema description coverage is only 13% across 8 parameters, and only environment_profile has a schema description. The main tool description does not clarify the roles of baseline, source, target, the three hashes, or nodes, leaving required inputs largely undocumented beyond their types.

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?

The description gives a specific verb and resource: construct a local candidate by replacing approved existing form subtrees with conflict checks. It clarifies that this is a local, non-writing operation, though it does not explicitly distinguish the tool from sibling preparation tools such as prepare_form_candidate or prepare_composite_form_candidate.

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?

The phrase 'replacing explicitly approved existing form subtrees' implies the intended usage context, and 'no writes or packaging' sets a boundary. However, there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or comparison to alternative sibling 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