Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Dynamics 365 MCP Server

Dynamics 365 MCP Server

by Kenny-666
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

prepare_form_script_entry_candidate

Read-only

Prepare a local Dynamics 365 form script candidate by adding or removing one reviewed script library or handler entry while preserving all other entries.

Instructions

Add or remove one reviewed script library or handler entry in a local candidate, preserving other entries.

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>",
      "kind": "<kind>",
      "entry_id": "<entry_id>",
      "action": "<action>",
      "entry_hash": "<entry_hash>"
    },
    "name": "prepare_form_script_entry_candidate"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
kindYes
actionYes
sourceYes
targetYes
baselineYes
entry_idYes
entry_hashYes
event_nameNo
source_hashYes
target_hashYes
baseline_hashYes
attribute_nameNo
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

C2.8/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, but the description says the tool adds or removes an entry in a candidate, which is a mutation of that candidate. Because the description directly contradicts the only safety annotation, this is an annotation contradiction.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that contains the operation and scope without filler. 'Reviewed' and 'preserving other entries' are useful qualifiers, so no wording is obviously wasted.

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?

For a 13-parameter candidate-preparation tool with 10 required fields and no output schema, the description is too thin. It does not explain the baseline/source/target hashing model, what a local candidate is, or what happens on hash mismatch.

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?

The description maps loosely to kind (library/handler), action (add/remove), and entry_id (one entry), but it leaves baseline, source, target, entry_hash, and all three hash parameters unexplained. With only 8% schema description coverage and 10 required parameters, this is far below what is needed.

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 pair ('Add or remove') and resource ('script library or handler entry') plus scope ('one ... in a local candidate'), so the operation is identifiable. It does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling candidate-preparation tools, so it falls short of the top score.

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?

It implies this is used after an entry has been reviewed and only against a local candidate, and that other entries should be preserved. It gives no explicit when-not conditions or alternative tools such as inspect_form_script_entry or prepare_form_candidate.

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