Skip to main content
Glama
jgt87

Copilot Studio MCP

by jgt87
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Update tenant settings

cs_admin_update_tenant_settings

Change tenant-wide Copilot Studio settings from a file or single value; live changes require confirm:true, otherwise performs a dry run.

Instructions

Change tenant-wide settings, either from a settings file or one setting at a time (for example powerPlatform.governance.disableDeveloperEnvironmentCreationByNonAdminUsers). Affects the whole tenant: requires confirm: true. Runs 'pac admin update-tenant-settings' with the active pac auth profile. Mutates a live environment: requires confirm: true (a dry run otherwise).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
cwdNoWorking directory for pac (for project commands: the solution project folder)
confirmNoRequired to actually perform a change in a live environment. Without it the tool returns a dry run.
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.
settingNameNoSingle setting path
settingValueNoValue for that setting
settingsFileNoA .json file of settings (from cs_admin_list_tenant_settings)
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

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses tenant-wide blast radius, the confirm:true gate with dry-run fallback, and that it wraps 'pac admin update-tenant-settings' under the active auth profile. It does not describe failure/partial-apply behavior or the response shape, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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?

Front-loaded and compact, with scope stated first. However, 'requires confirm: true' is repeated twice in consecutive sentences, wasting a sentence that could have carried additional information.

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?

For an 8-parameter mutation tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers scope, safety gating, the underlying command, and both invocation modes. Nothing critical to correct invocation is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3; the description adds value by framing settingName/settingValue as the per-setting mode versus settingsFile as the bulk mode, which the schema alone does not make explicit. It does not state whether the two modes are mutually exclusive or how settingsFile interacts with confirm.

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?

States a specific verb (change) and resource (tenant-wide settings), and explicitly names both input modes (settings file vs individual setting), with a concrete example setting path. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling read tool cs_admin_list_tenant_settings.

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?

It gives clear context: use this to change tenant-wide settings, and it points to cs_admin_list_tenant_settings as the source of a settings .json file. It lacks explicit when-not guidance (e.g., prefer cs_admin_set_governance_config for governance-only changes) among many sibling admin tools.

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