Creates an empty Dynamics 365 Finance & Operations DMF import data project so you can define and import entities; import tools can create it automatically if absent.
Create an empty DMF import data project. Optional: import_data creates the project itself if it doesn't exist, and the first import defines its entities.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| description | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one meaningful trait: the project starts empty and its entities are defined by the first import. It does not state behavior when a project with the same name already exists (error vs. reuse), idempotency, or any permission requirements.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences with the core action front-loaded and no padding. The second sentence's meaning is somewhat compressed, but nothing is wasted.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, with no annotations and zero parameter coverage, the definition leaves the duplicate-name case, required-vs-optional fields, and permissions undocumented, which is thin for a creation tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% for both parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. It never explains that `name` is required or what `description` does, nor does it mention defaults or naming constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The first sentence gives a specific verb and resource: "Create an empty DMF import data project." It also distinguishes this tool from import_data by noting import_data can create projects itself, though the "DMF" acronym is left unexplained.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The "Optional:" note tells the agent this call is unnecessary when a subsequent import_data would create the project implicitly, and that the first import defines its entities. There are no explicit exclusions or prerequisites, and the framing is slightly ambiguous about when creating an empty project is preferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.