Runs a custom Dynamics 365 function or action by name, passing optional parameters to complete CRM operations.
Execute a custom Dynamics 365 function or action
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| parameters | No | Parameters to pass to the function (optional) | |
| functionName | Yes | The name of the function or action to execute |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: not whether execution has side effects, whether it can be destructive, what permissions are required, or that behavior depends entirely on the named function. For an arbitrary-execution tool this is a major gap.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though the brevity comes at the cost of the missing detail scored elsewhere rather than being a model of well-structured completeness.
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?
With no output schema, a nested free-form parameters object, and no annotations, the description should explain how an agent discovers valid function names and what happens on success/failure. None of that is present, leaving a real gap for a tool whose contract varies per invocation.
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 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema and the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no extra meaning about how to format the nested free-form 'parameters' object or how functionName relates to the schema.
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?
States a specific verb and resource: execute a custom Dynamics 365 function or action. This is clearly distinct from the entity CRUD and query siblings, but the description never explicitly contrasts itself with them or clarifies what 'custom function or action' means in this context (e.g., bound vs unbound actions, plugin messages).
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no alternatives named. The agent is left to infer that this is for invoking arbitrary platform functions rather than using the dedicated CRUD/query siblings, which is exactly the decision that needs guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.