Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Dynamics 365 MCP Server

Dynamics 365 MCP Server

by Kenny-666
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

restore_customization_backup

Destructive

Preview and restore an eligible Dynamics 365 customization backup with ETag validation and readback, without publishing changes.

Instructions

Preview and restore an eligible saved customization backup with native ETag checks and readback; never publishes.

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": {
      "journal_id": "<journal_id>"
    },
    "name": "restore_customization_backup"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dry_runNo
journal_idYes
expected_hashNo
environment_profileNoOptional named environment profile for this call; omit to use the configured default.
solution_unique_nameNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.1.2

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows this is a destructive mutation. The description adds useful context: native ETag checks for concurrency, readback verification, and the 'never publishes' constraint. However, it doesn't clarify what the restore overwrites, permission requirements, or reversibility, leaving meaningful gaps for a destructive operation.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It packs purpose, behavior, and a constraint efficiently, though it could be slightly more structured for readability.

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?

Given the tool is a destructive mutation with no output schema and low parameter coverage, the description is too brief. It does not explain what is returned, what preconditions 'eligible' entails, or how the native ETag/readback behavior affects usage, leaving the agent under-informed.

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 20% (only environment_profile is described). The description mentions 'ETag checks' which loosely hints at expected_hash, but it does not explain journal_id, dry_run, or solution_unique_name. It adds very little meaning beyond the schema for the other four parameters.

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 clearly states the verb (preview and restore) and resource (saved customization backup), and adds a distinguishing scope ('eligible') plus a key constraint ('never publishes'). It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative like backup_customization, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The description implies the tool is for restoring backups, but it doesn't explain when to choose it over backup_customization or how to decide between preview (dry_run) and actual restore.

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