Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Dynamics 365 MCP Server

Dynamics 365 MCP Server

by Kenny-666
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

save_sitemap_with_journal

Destructive

Preview and conditionally save a Dynamics 365 SiteMap using ETag checks and a persistent before-image, without publishing. Requires a configured journal directory and current CRM ETags.

Instructions

Preview and conditionally save a SiteMap with a persistent before-image. Requires absolute D365_JOURNAL_DIR and specific CRM ETags. No publication.

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": {
      "id": "<id>",
      "xml": "<xml>"
    },
    "name": "save_sitemap_with_journal"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYes
xmlYes
dry_runNo
expected_hashNoCurrent planHash from the publication preview, required for execution.
environment_profileNoOptional named environment profile for this call; omit to use the configured default.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.1.2

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false, so safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond that: a persistent before-image is written, an absolute D365_JOURNAL_DIR must be configured, specific CRM ETags are required, and nothing is published. It stops short of saying what state is left behind on failure or how the journal is later consumed.

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?

Three short sentences with the action and side effect front-loaded and no filler. The middle sentence is dense and slightly cryptic ("absolute D365_JOURNAL_DIR and specific CRM ETags") but every clause carries information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

This is a destructive, non-idempotent mutation over a 5-parameter schema with no output schema and only 40% param coverage, so the description should carry more weight. It covers prerequisites and non-publication but omits the recovery path (rollback_sitemap_journal), what dry_run returns, and what the conditional check actually fails on.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is only 40%, and the two documented parameters (expected_hash, environment_profile) already carry descriptions, so the description's "specific CRM ETags" and "conditionally" add only loose corroboration. The three undocumented parameters (id, xml, dry_run) get no semantic elaboration — dry_run is only implied by "Preview" and the id/xml roles are left entirely to the schema types and patterns.

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?

"Preview and conditionally save a SiteMap with a persistent before-image" gives a specific verb set (preview/conditionally save) and resource (SiteMap), plus the differentiator of a journaled before-image. "No publication" implicitly separates it from publish_sitemap, but it never names the closest siblings (plan_sitemap_publication, rollback_sitemap_journal, edit_sitemap_xml), so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

"Preview and conditionally save" hints at a two-phase flow and "conditionally" hints at the hash guard, but the description never states when to call this versus plan_sitemap_publication or publish_sitemap, nor when to set dry_run=true versus executing. Usage is implied by the wording rather than spelled out.

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