Skip to main content
Glama
jgt87

Copilot Studio MCP

by jgt87
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Create a pac auth profile

cs_create_auth_profile

Creates a Power Platform auth profile for non-interactive or interactive sign-in, including federated and device-code flows. Use background mode for browser sign-in and poll job status.

Instructions

Create a pac authentication profile. Non-interactive: service principal (applicationId + clientSecret + tenant), certificate, managed identity, or GitHub / Azure DevOps federation. Interactive (a person signing in, which is the usual way to add an admin account): pass name, environment and background: true - pac opens its own browser, the call returns a jobId at once, and cs_job_status reports when the profile exists. Without background this blocks until the sign-in finishes and the client will usually give up first. Device code needs a terminal: this server gives pac no stdin. Runs 'pac auth create' with the active pac auth profile.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
cwdNoWorking directory for pac (for project commands: the solution project folder)
nameNoProfile name (max 30 characters)
cloudNoCloud instance (Public, UsGov, UsGovHigh, UsGovDod, China)
tenantNoTenant id (required with applicationId)
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.
passwordNoPassword (masked in logs) (masked in logs and results)
usernameNoUser name for username/password auth (not recommended)
backgroundNoRun in the background and return a jobId immediately. Use this for interactive sign-in: pac opens a browser and waits, which would otherwise outlive the client's call timeout. Poll cs_job_status.
deviceCodeNoUse the device-code flow for interactive sign-in (blocks until done)
environmentNoDefault environment for the profile (id, URL, unique or partial name)
clientSecretNoClient secret (masked in logs) (masked in logs and results)
applicationIdNoApp registration (client) id
timeoutSecondsNoDefault 600
githubFederatedNoGitHub federated credential (needs tenant and applicationId)
managedIdentityNoUse the default Azure identity
certificateDiskPathNoCertificate file for certificate auth
certificatePasswordNoCertificate password (masked in logs) (masked in logs and results)
azureDevOpsFederatedNoAzure DevOps federated credential (needs tenant and applicationId)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.5

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses browser-based sign-in, immediate jobId return for background runs, blocking behavior without background, and the terminal requirement for device code. It omits the non-background return value and whether the new profile becomes active, but the key operational behaviors are surfaced.

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?

The description is dense but well-structured, starting with the core purpose, then non-interactive modes, then interactive instructions, then caveats. Every sentence adds operational value, though the long parentheticals make it slightly heavy.

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 an 18-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers many important operational details but leaves gaps: it does not state what a successful non-background call returns, whether the created profile becomes the active profile, or how this relates to listing/selecting profiles afterward. These are material for correct invocation and follow-up.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds value by grouping parameters into auth modes (service principal, certificate, managed identity, federation) and clarifying that interactive flows need name, environment, and background. This goes beyond the individual schema descriptions.

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?

Clearly states the action: create a pac authentication profile, and enumerates the supported authentication modes. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling auth-profile tools (list/select/delete), but the creation purpose is unmistakable.

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?

Gives concrete when-to-use guidance for interactive vs non-interactive flows, explicitly recommends background: true for interactive sign-in, and warns that device code is unusable because the server provides no stdin. It does not mention alternative auth-profile tools, but for creation the main decision points are covered.

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