Skip to main content
Glama
dynamics365ninja

D365 F&O MCP Server

by dynamics365ninja
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

run_bp_check

Read-only

Check a Dynamics 365 Finance and Operations project for Microsoft Best Practice violations, returning warnings and errors with rule codes.

Instructions

Run Microsoft Best Practices checker (xppbp.exe) on a D365FO project. Returns BP warnings and errors with rule codes (e.g. BPErrorLabelIsText, BPXmlDocNoDocumentationComments). Runs AFTER a build, not after a write — and build_d365fo_project(bpCheck:true) already folds this check into the build, so a separate call is rarely needed.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
objectsNoCheck several objects in ONE call — preferred over targetFilter. Shared preamble is printed once and findings are grouped per object.
modelNameNoModel name to check. Auto-detected if omitted.
packagePathNoPackagesLocalDirectory root path. Auto-detected if omitted.
projectPathNoAbsolute path to the .rnrproj file to analyze. Auto-detected if omitted.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.16.2
    • removedInput schema / properties / targetElementType
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Element type for targetFilter. Looked up in the symbol index if omitted; ambiguous or unknown names error rather than being assumed to be a class.",
-  "type": "string"
-}
    • removedInput schema / properties / targetFilter
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Single-object form: object name to check. Use objects[] for more than one.",
-  "type": "string"
-}
  2. Changed3 schema fields changedv1.14.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / modelName / description
      Previous value: -"Model name to check. Auto-detected from .mcp.json if omitted."New value: +"Model name to check. Auto-detected if omitted."
    • changedInput schema / properties / packagePath / description
      Previous value: -"PackagesLocalDirectory root path. Auto-detected from .mcp.json if omitted."New value: +"PackagesLocalDirectory root path. Auto-detected if omitted."
    • changedInput schema / properties / projectPath / description
      Previous value: -"Absolute path to the .rnrproj file to analyze. Auto-detected from .mcp.json if omitted."New value: +"Absolute path to the .rnrproj file to analyze. Auto-detected if omitted."
  3. Changed3 schema fields changedv1.9.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / objects
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Check several objects in ONE call — preferred over targetFilter. Shared preamble is printed once and findings are grouped per object.",
+  "items": {
+    "properties": {
+      "objectName": {
+        "description": "Object name.",
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "objectType": {
+        "description": "class, table, form, enum, view, query, edt, ... Looked up in the symbol index if omitted.",
+        "type": "string"
+      }
+    },
+    "required": [
+      "objectName"
+    ],
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}
    • changedInput schema / properties / targetElementType / description
      Previous value: -"Element type for the filter when using xppbp 10.0.24+ (equals-style CLI). Common values: class, table, form, enum, view, query. Defaults to \"class\" when targetFilter is set but this is omitted."New value: +"Element type for targetFilter. Looked up in the symbol index if omitted; ambiguous or unknown names error rather than being assumed to be a class."
    • changedInput schema / properties / targetFilter / description
      Previous value: -"Optional: filter results to a specific object name (class, table, form, enum, ...)."New value: +"Single-object form: object name to check. Use objects[] for more than one."
  4. First observedv1.8.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: the ordering constraint relative to builds, the kind of findings returned, and the relationship to the integrated build check. It does not cover failure modes or permissions, but the read-only annotation lowers the burden.

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?

Two sentences deliver purpose, output examples, a usage precondition, and the key alternative in a compact way. There is no filler, and the most important scoping guidance appears early.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly covers what the tool returns: BP warnings and errors with rule codes. It also communicates when to call it and why separate calls are often unnecessary. It could mention result grouping or what happens when all parameters are omitted, but the schema already covers parameter auto-detection and batching.

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%, so all four parameters (objects, modelName, packagePath, projectPath) are already documented with meaningful descriptions, including auto-detection and preferred batching of objects. The description does not need to repeat these details, and it adds only output-related context. 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 specific action: running Microsoft Best Practices checker (xppbp.exe) on a D365FO project, and what the output is: BP warnings and errors with rule codes. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling build_d365fo_project by noting that build already integrates this check.

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 explicitly says when the tool should be used — AFTER a build, not after a write — and notes that build_d365fo_project(bpCheck:true) already folds this check in, so a separate call is rarely needed. This gives an agent clear routing guidance toward the preferred alternative.

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