Skip to main content
Glama
dynamics365ninja

D365 F&O MCP Server

by dynamics365ninja
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

validate_object_naming

Read-only

Check a proposed D365FO object name against naming conventions for extension, ISV prefix, type suffix, and detect conflicts with the symbol index.

Instructions

Validate a proposed D365FO object name against naming conventions: extension naming, ISV prefix, type-specific suffixes, and conflict detection against the symbol index.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
objectTypeYesType of the D365FO object
modelPrefixNoExpected ISV/model prefix (2-4 uppercase letters, e.g. "WHS"). Auto-detected if omitted.
proposedNameYesThe proposed object name to validate
baseObjectNameNoRequired for extension types: name of the object being extended

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.16.2
    • changedInput schema / properties / objectType / enum
      Previous value: -[
-  "class",
-  "table",
-  "form",
-  "enum",
-  "edt",
-  "query",
-  "view",
-  "table-extension",
-  "class-extension",
-  "form-extension",
-  "enum-extension",
-  "edt-extension",
-  "menu-item",
-  "security-privilege",
-  "security-duty",
-  "security-role",
-  "data-entity"
-]New value: +[
+  "class",
+  "table",
+  "form",
+  "enum",
+  "edt",
+  "query",
+  "view",
+  "report",
+  "table-extension",
+  "class-extension",
+  "form-extension",
+  "enum-extension",
+  "edt-extension",
+  "menu-item",
+  "security-privilege",
+  "security-duty",
+  "security-role",
+  "data-entity"
+]
  2. First observedv1.8.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals safety, and the description adds useful behavioral detail by mentioning conflict detection against the symbol index and the categories of naming rules checked. No contradictions exist between description and annotations.

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, tightly worded sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then lists the validation checks. Every phrase adds useful information with no filler.

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?

Given the moderate complexity, complete parameter schema, and readOnlyHint annotation, the description is largely sufficient for selecting and invoking the tool. It could explicitly mention the return format or that results indicate pass/fail with reasons, but that is a minor gap because the tool's purpose is clear.

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 are already documented. The description reinforces concepts like ISV prefix and extension naming, but does not add significant new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema 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 states a specific verb ('Validate'), a clear resource ('a proposed D365FO object name'), and enumerates the exact validation dimensions (extension naming, ISV prefix, type-specific suffixes, symbol-index conflict detection). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like validate_code or generate_object without ambiguity.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description provides clear context: this tool is for checking a proposed object name against naming conventions before use. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the purpose is specific enough for an agent to infer when it applies.

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