Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Copilot Studio MCP

Copilot Studio MCP

by jgt87
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Create an agent from a template

cs_create_agent_from_template

Create a new Copilot Studio agent in a solution from a template YAML file, running pac copilot create with a required confirm flag for live environments.

Instructions

Create a new agent in a solution from a template produced by cs_extract_agent_template. Runs 'pac copilot create' with the active pac auth profile. Mutates a live environment: requires confirm: true (a dry run otherwise).

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "schemaName": "<schemaName>",
      "templateFile": "<templateFile>",
      "displayName": "<displayName>",
      "solution": "<solution>"
    },
    "name": "cs_create_agent_from_template"
  }
}

Input 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.
solutionYesUnique name of the solution to create the agent in
backgroundNoRun in the background and return a jobId immediately, for a command that takes longer than the client will wait. Poll cs_job_status.
schemaNameYesSchema (unique) name of the new agent, e.g. contoso_HelpDesk
displayNameYesDisplay name of the new agent
environmentNoEnvironment id or URL; default: the environment of the active pac auth profile
templateFileYesTemplate YAML from cs_extract_agent_template
timeoutSecondsNoDefault 900

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

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does most of it: it discloses that it runs 'pac copilot create', uses the active pac auth profile, mutates a live environment, and that omitting confirm:true yields only a dry run. It stops short of describing failure modes or follow-on effects (e.g. whether the agent must be published afterward).

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the mechanism, then the safety constraint. No sentence is filler and nothing is buried.

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?

For a 10-parameter mutating tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential contract: what it creates, what input it needs, and the confirmation gate. Secondary operational details (background/jobId polling, timeoutSeconds, cwd) live in the schema and need not be repeated.

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 ten parameters including confirm, templateFile, profile and background are already documented in the schema. The description's 'requires confirm: true' and template provenance restate schema content rather than adding format or constraint detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource (create a new agent in a solution) plus the qualifying input (from a template produced by cs_extract_agent_template), which cleanly separates it from cs_create_agent and cs_clone_agent. An agent can identify the right tool without opening the schema.

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 names the prerequisite producer tool (cs_extract_agent_template) and the confirm:true condition, which is actionable usage context. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this over cs_create_agent or cs_clone_agent, so routing still requires inference from the sibling names.

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