Retrieve detailed schema information for a specific Microsoft Dynamics 365 entity by providing its logical name, such as contact, account, or opportunity.
Get detailed schema information for a specific Dynamics 365 entity
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| entityName | Yes | The logical name of the entity (singular, e.g., 'contact', 'account', 'opportunity') |
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. It does not state whether the call requires authentication, whether it's read-only, what the returned schema looks like, latency, or any side effects. 'Get' implies read-only but the description never confirms this.
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, efficient sentence that front-loads the action and resource. No wasted words, though it is quite terse given the tool's potential complexity.
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?
For a single-parameter read tool with a fully specified schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it leaves the return shape, read-only nature, and error conditions unaddressed.
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 the parameter's meaning and format (singular logical name, with examples) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, making the baseline of 3 appropriate.
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 (Get) and resource (schema information for a Dynamics 365 entity), clearly distinguishing it from data-retrieval siblings like get_entity or query_entities. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from its closest sibling get_attribute_schema, but the object (entity vs. attribute) is clear.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_entities or get_attribute_schema, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the name and siblings alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.