Skip to main content
Glama
dynamics365ninja

D365 F&O MCP Server

by dynamics365ninja
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

prepare

Read-only

Aggregate development context for D365 F&O X++ tasks: get object details, extension eligibility, naming rules, and grounding token in one call before modifying, creating, or testing code.

Instructions

ONE-call context aggregator + groundingToken (30-min TTL, required for extension/new-object writes when GROUNDING_ENFORCE=true). Choose a mode: • change → extending/modifying an EXISTING object: exact signature, existing CoC wrappers, eligibility, recommended strategy, naming, patterns. Replaces the analyze→search→info→generate loop. • create → a NEW object: collision check, naming with auto-prefix, similar objects, EDT suggestions, reusable labels, mined property defaults. • test → writing a SysTest for an existing class: methods worth covering, tests that already exist, whether the model references TestEssentials, and the red-first cycle.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
goalYesOne-sentence description of the intent. Example (change): "Add CoC on CustTable.validateWrite". Example (create): "Parameter table for the Contoso import feature."
modeYes
operationNo[change] The modify operation(s) you intend to run — comma-separated for several ("add-field,add-index"). Their full parameter contracts come back in THIS response. Defaults to add-method when methodName is given.
fieldsHintNo[create] For tables/views: planned field names — each gets EDT suggestions from the index.
methodNameNo[change] Target method name when the change involves a specific method (CoC or event handlers). Example: "validateWrite".
objectNameYes[change] Name of the object to extend/modify (e.g. "CustTable"). [create] Proposed BASE name WITHOUT model prefix.
objectTypeNo[change] type — auto-detected when omitted. [create] REQUIRED; an extension is Base.Suffix.
proposedNameNo[change] Proposed name for the new extension class/object. When provided, naming validation runs.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed6 schema fields changedv1.16.2
    • removedInput schema / properties / mode / description
      Removed value: -"change = extend/modify an existing object; create = a brand-new object."
    • changedInput schema / properties / mode / enum
      Previous value: -[
-  "change",
-  "create"
-]New value: +[
+  "change",
+  "create",
+  "test"
+]
    • changedInput schema / properties / objectName / description
      Previous value: -"[change] Name of the object to extend/modify (e.g. \"CustTable\"). [create] Proposed BASE name WITHOUT model prefix (same value you would pass to d365fo_file create)."New value: +"[change] Name of the object to extend/modify (e.g. \"CustTable\"). [create] Proposed BASE name WITHOUT model prefix."
    • changedInput schema / properties / objectType / description
      Previous value: -"[change] D365FO object type — auto-detected when omitted. [create] REQUIRED — type of the new object."New value: +"[change] type — auto-detected when omitted. [create] REQUIRED; an extension is Base.Suffix."
    • changedInput schema / properties / objectType / enum
      Previous value: -[
-  "class",
-  "table",
-  "form",
-  "enum",
-  "edt",
-  "query",
-  "view",
-  "data-entity",
-  "report",
-  "map",
-  "menu-item-display",
-  "menu-item-action",
-  "menu-item-output",
-  "menu",
-  "security-privilege",
-  "security-duty",
-  "security-role",
-  "business-event",
-  "tile",
-  "kpi",
-  "service",
-  "service-group",
-  "macro",
-  "configuration-key",
-  "security-policy",
-  "aggregate-measurement",
-  "license-code"
-]New value: +[
+  "class",
+  "table",
+  "form",
+  "enum",
+  "edt",
+  "query",
+  "view",
+  "data-entity",
+  "report",
+  "map",
+  "menu-item-display",
+  "menu-item-action",
+  "menu-item-output",
+  "menu",
+  "security-privilege",
+  "security-duty",
+  "security-role",
+  "business-event",
+  "tile",
+  "kpi",
+  "service",
+  "service-group",
+  "macro",
+  "configuration-key",
+  "security-policy",
+  "aggregate-measurement",
+  "license-code",
+  "table-extension",
+  "class-extension",
+  "form-extension",
+  "enum-extension",
+  "edt-extension"
+]
    • changedInput schema / properties / operation / description
      Previous value: -"[change] The modify operation you intend to run; its full parameter contract comes back in THIS response, so no separate op-spec call. Defaults to add-method when methodName is given."New value: +"[change] The modify operation(s) you intend to run — comma-separated for several (\"add-field,add-index\"). Their full parameter contracts come back in THIS response. Defaults to add-method when methodName is given."
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv1.9.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / operation
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "[change] The modify operation you intend to run; its full parameter contract comes back in THIS response, so no separate op-spec call. Defaults to add-method when methodName is given.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  3. First observedv1.8.0

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds useful behavioral details beyond the annotations: groundingToken has a 30-minute TTL and is required for extension/new-object writes when GROUNDING_ENFORCE=true. It does not describe the full response shape, but the token and its lifecycle are disclosed.

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 dense but well-structured: the core value proposition and token requirement are front-loaded, then each mode gets a concise bullet with concrete outputs. Every sentence contributes useful information with no filler.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Despite no output schema, the description enumerates exactly what each mode returns: signatures, wrappers, collision checks, naming advice, EDT suggestions, tests, and the red-first cycle. It also explains parameter behavior such as operation defaults and objectType auto-detection, making it sufficient for correct invocation.

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 88%, and the input schema already documents each parameter with mode-specific meanings and examples. The description adds high-level mode context but does not materially improve parameter-level understanding beyond what the schema already provides.

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 identifies 'prepare' as a one-call context aggregator that returns a groundingToken, and it defines distinct change/create/test modes with concrete outputs. It also differentiates itself from the sibling loop by explicitly stating it replaces analyze→search→info→generate.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives explicit mode-specific guidance: change for modifying existing objects, create for new objects, and test for writing SysTests. It also names the multi-tool alternative it replaces, making selection straightforward.

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