Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Dynamics 365 MCP Server

Dynamics 365 MCP Server

by Kenny-666
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

publish_isolated_release_table

Destructive

Preview or publish an entire Dataverse table in an isolated environment after validating a reviewed saved form and solution membership, including pending customizations.

Instructions

Preview or publish an entire table in an isolated organization after checking a reviewed saved form and solution membership. All pending customizations on the table may be published.

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>",
      "solution_unique_name": "<solution_unique_name>",
      "logical_name": "<logical_name>",
      "isolated_form_id": "<isolated_form_id>",
      "candidate_hash": "<candidate_hash>",
      "current_members": "<current_members>"
    },
    "name": "publish_isolated_release_table"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dry_runNo
logical_nameYes
expected_hashNo
candidate_hashYes
source_profileYes
target_profileYes
current_membersYes
isolated_form_idYes
isolated_profileYes
environment_profileNoOptional named environment profile for this call; omit to use the configured default.
solution_unique_nameYes
acknowledge_entire_tableNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.3.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and non-idempotent, and the description usefully adds blast radius: all pending customizations on the table may be published. That addition is hedged ('may be published') and never explains the acknowledge_entire_table confirmation gate or the concurrency-hash guards, which are exactly the behaviors a destructive 12-parameter tool should disclose.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Two sentences with no filler, and the action plus scope come first with the precondition trailing. Every clause carries meaning; the only weakness is that the second sentence is vague rather than wasteful.

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 destructive, non-idempotent tool with 8 required parameters, no output schema, and hash/member-list safety guards, the description is far too thin. It omits dry_run semantics, the acknowledgment gate, and any hint at what the returned preview contains.

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?

Only 8% schema description coverage across 12 parameters, and the description mentions just two concepts obliquely (isolated_form_id via 'reviewed saved form', solution_unique_name via 'solution membership'). Required parameters such as candidate_hash, expected_hash, and current_members are undisclosed in both schema and prose, leaving the agent to guess at their semantics in a destructive flow.

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 uses a specific verb pair (preview or publish) and a precise resource scope (an entire table in an isolated organization), which implicitly separates it from sibling publish_isolated_release_component and from publish_model_table. It also states the precondition of a reviewed saved form and solution membership. It never names an alternative sibling outright, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

'After checking a reviewed saved form and solution membership' gives a precondition, and 'preview or publish' implies dry_run versus real publication. However, it never says when to choose this over publish_isolated_release_component or publish_model_table, nor when dry_run should be used, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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