PowerPlatform MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.4.5
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct resource or operation: entity metadata, attributes (list vs. single), relationships, option sets, records by ID, querying, and prompt usage. Even get-entity-attributes vs get-entity-attribute are clearly list vs. get, so no ambiguity.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent lowercase hyphenated verb-noun pattern (get-*, query-records, use-*). The verbs are clear and nouns are specific, making the set predictable and easy to navigate.
Tool Count5/5
With 8 tools, the server is well-scoped for a PowerPlatform metadata and query assistant. Each tool addresses a distinct need without redundancy or bloat, fitting comfortably within the ideal 3-15 range.
Completeness3/5
The set covers metadata retrieval (entity, attributes, relationships, option sets) and record querying, but lacks critical operations like listing all entities or creating/updating/deleting records. For a read-only explorer it's decent, but the missing list-entities and lifecycle operations create notable gaps.
Average 3.3/5 across 8 of 8 tools scored. Lowest: 2.7/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as whether the tool is read-only, deterministic, requires authentication, or has side effects. The single sentence conveys purpose only, with no insight into how the operation behaves or what output to expect.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with no redundant words. It is appropriately sized for a simple purpose statement and front-loads the verb.
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?
With three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description fails to explain what the tool returns, how promptType and attributeName interact, or what the entity name should reference. It is too sparse to be contextually complete for an agent to invoke correctly without further information.
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 description coverage is 100%, with each parameter already documented. The description adds no additional parameter context beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
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 uses a clear verb ('Use') and resource ('predefined prompt template for PowerPlatform entities'), distinguishing it from sibling tools that all retrieve metadata or records. However, it does not specify what 'using' produces (e.g., a generated prompt string), so it lacks full clarity about the tool's output.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool instead of the sibling tools. There is no mention of specific use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. The description is purely declarative and gives no contextual direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read operation but does not state side effects, return format, or any operational constraints. The absence of detail leaves the agent uncertain about what to expect.
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, direct sentence without fluff. It is efficient, but the brevity contributes to under-specification, preventing a higher score.
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 no output schema, no annotations, and a single parameter, the description is too minimal to be complete. It does not explain what metadata is returned, how it relates to sibling tools, or any usage notes that would help an agent invoke it correctly.
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?
The schema fully describes 'entityName' (100% coverage). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline but does not enhance understanding.
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 states the verb and resource: 'Get metadata about a PowerPlatform entity'. This is clear and specific. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like get-entity-attributes or get-entity-relationships, which are also about entity metadata.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description only says 'Get metadata', without specifying scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. Sibling tools are more specific, but no comparison is made.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get', which implies read-only, but does not describe what is returned (e.g., field metadata vs. values), pagination, error behavior, or any side effects. This is a thin description for a tool with no structured safety hints.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that directly communicates the tool's purpose without unnecessary words or repetition. It is well-structured and easy to parse.
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?
For a simple tool with one well-documented parameter, the description is minimally viable but lacks details about the return value or output shape, which is significant since there is no output schema. It does not clarify whether attributes are returned as a list, dictionary, or with specific metadata, so completeness is moderate.
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?
The input schema covers the single parameter 'entityName' with a clear description ('The logical name of the entity'), giving 100% schema coverage. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 action ('Get') and the resource ('attributes/fields of a PowerPlatform entity'). It distinguishes from the sibling 'get-entity-attribute' by using the plural form, indicating it retrieves multiple attributes rather than a single one. However, it could be more explicit about the scope (e.g., listing all attributes) to fully align with the best examples.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get-entity-attribute' or 'get-entity-metadata'. It does not mention scenarios, exclusions, or relationships to sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It only states 'Get', which implies a read operation, but does not clarify whether it returns attribute metadata or a value, nor any permissions or return format. This leaves significant ambiguity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that directly states the tool's core purpose with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple getter.
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?
For a simple tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally viable but lacks usage context and clarity on return semantics, which could confuse an agent trying to select between this and related entity tools.
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?
The input schema already fully documents both parameters (entityName and attributeName) with logical name descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the verb 'Get' and specifies the resource as 'a specific attribute/field of a PowerPlatform entity', clearly distinguishing it from siblings like get-entity-attributes (plural) and get-record. It is specific and 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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get-entity-attributes or get-record. The description lacks any contextual instructions or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only says 'query records' and does not mention whether the operation is read-only, how pagination works, what happens on invalid filters, or what the return format looks like. This is minimal disclosure for a query tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence that directly states the tool's purpose with no filler or redundancy. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity and front-loads the key action.
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?
The tool is relatively simple with 3 parameters and no output schema. However, the description does not clarify what the query returns (e.g., a list of records) or how maxRecords and pagination behave, which would be helpful. Given the high schema coverage and straightforward nature, this is adequate but not complete.
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?
The schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters, including examples for the filter expression. The description's mention of 'OData filter expression' adds no new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Query records using an OData filter expression'. The verb 'query' plus the resource 'records' makes the action specific, and it naturally distinguishes from sibling tools like get-record (single record retrieval) and metadata tools.
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?
The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios such as filtering a list, nor does it exclude cases like single-record lookup. The only clue is the name and the OData filter mention, which is implicit rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the basic 'get' action and does not disclose behavior for missing records, authorization requirements, or response details. The only extra detail (entity name must be plural) is already present in the schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that immediately conveys the core purpose and required inputs. It is concise, front-loaded, and contains no extraneous 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?
For a simple two-parameter get tool, the description is minimally adequate but has clear gaps: it does not describe the return format or error behavior, and there is no output schema to compensate.
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 100% for both parameters, with clear descriptions for entityNamePlural and recordId. The tool description adds no new meaning beyond restating these identifiers, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: retrieving a specific record by entity name (plural) and ID. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like query-records (which lists records) and get-entity-metadata (which retrieves metadata).
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?
The description implies usage for fetching a single known record by ID, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like query-records. There is no when-not-to-use or alternative guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It simply says 'Get', indicating a read operation, but does not mention potential errors, permissions, return format, or side effects. The description is minimal and lacks behavioral context beyond the obvious read-only nature.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, front-loaded with the core action and resource, with zero extraneous words. It is perfectly concise and well-structured for its simplicity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple getter with one well-documented parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate. It clearly states the tool's purpose and input. While it could mention return details or failure behavior, the low complexity makes this a minor gap, so it earns a 4 rather than 3.
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?
The single parameter optionSetName has 100% schema description coverage ('The name of the global option set'). The description's 'by name' aligns with the schema but adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get a global option set definition by name' uses a specific verb (Get) and resource (global option set definition), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like get-entity-metadata and get-record. It is unambiguous and directly conveys the tool's function.
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?
Usage context is implied by the resource name and sibling tools (e.g., this is for option sets, not entity metadata or records), but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions or alternative references are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read operation ('Get') and specifies the relationship types, but it fails to mention permissions, return format, or any side effects. No contradiction exists.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It earns its place by specifying cardinalities.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple single-parameter getter, the description is adequately complete: it names the entity type and the kinds of relationships returned. However, with no output schema or return-format hints, some uncertainty about the response structure remains, but it's sufficient for tool selection.
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?
The only parameter, entityName, has a clear schema description ('The logical name of the entity'), achieving 100% schema coverage. The tool description adds little beyond restating 'for a PowerPlatform entity', so the schema already provides the meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and the resource ('relationships'), further narrowed by entity type ('PowerPlatform entity') and relationship kinds ('one-to-many and many-to-many'). This distinguishes it from siblings like get-entity-attributes or get-entity-metadata.
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?
The description implies usage via its purpose, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over siblings, nor does it provide exclusions or alternatives. Sibling names are not referenced in the description itself.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![powerplatform-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/dayour/powerplatform-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/dayour/powerplatform-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![powerplatform-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/dayour/powerplatform-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/dayour/powerplatform-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/dayour/powerplatform-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server