Skip to main content
Glama
jgt87

Copilot Studio MCP

by jgt87
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

List DLP policies

cs_admin_list_dlp_policies

List Data Loss Prevention policies in a tenant to see connector groups that control which connectors agents or flows can combine. Runs pac admin dlp-policy list using the active pac auth profile.

Instructions

Data loss prevention policies in the tenant: the connector groups that decide which connectors an agent or flow may combine. Runs 'pac admin dlp-policy list' with the active pac auth profile.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
cwdNoWorking directory for pac (for project commands: the solution project folder)
profileNopac auth profile to run as: the admin account for tenant commands. Defaults to CPS_ADMIN_PROFILE for admin commands and CPS_PAC_PROFILE otherwise, then the active profile. cs_init lists the profiles.
backgroundNoRun in the background and return a jobId immediately, for a command that takes longer than the client will wait. Poll cs_job_status.
timeoutSecondsNoDefault 600

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.1.8
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
  2. First observedv0.1.5

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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 discloses the mechanism ('pac admin dlp-policy list' with the active pac auth profile), which hints at auth prerequisites, but it never states that the operation is read-only, nor anything about output size, pagination, or error behavior of a list command.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the resource and then the domain explanation; very little waste. The trailing pac-command detail is arguably internal mechanics rather than agent-facing information, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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 low-complexity list command with four optional parameters fully documented in the schema and no output schema, the description supplies useful domain context about what DLP policies represent. It still omits the read-only nature and any sense of what the listing returns, so it is adequate rather than 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents cwd, profile, background, and timeoutSeconds in detail. The description's only parameter-adjacent remark is the 'active pac auth profile' usage, which the profile parameter description covers more thoroughly. Baseline 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 identifies the resource precisely (tenant DLP policies) and even explains what a DLP policy is functionally (connector groups that govern which connectors an agent or flow may combine). It lacks an explicit verb phrase and does not distinguish itself from the sibling cs_admin_show_dlp_policy, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no routing to alternatives, even though cs_admin_show_dlp_policy sits right next to it in the sibling list. The mention of the underlying pac command is implementation detail, not usage guidance.

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