Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Copilot Studio MCP

Copilot Studio MCP

by jgt87
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Show environment details (pac)

cs_env_who

Retrieve the organisation ID, URL, version, and signed-in user for a Copilot Studio environment using the active Power Platform CLI auth profile.

Instructions

Organisation id, URL, version and the signed-in user for an environment. Runs 'pac env who' with the active pac auth profile.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "cs_env_who"
  }
}

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.
environmentNoEnvironment id or URL; default: the environment of the active pac auth profile
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

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the underlying command ('pac env who') and that it uses the active auth profile, and lists returned fields, but it does not state that the operation is read-only, describe auth prerequisites, or mention error behavior.

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 short sentences with no wasted text; the returned fields are front-loaded and the execution detail follows. Slightly telegraphic but appropriately sized.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description compensates by listing the returned fields. Combined with the fully described input schema, this is mostly complete for a simple environment-info command, though usage guidance and explicit safety context are thin.

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 coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents each parameter. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 clearly states what the tool returns—organisation id, URL, version, and signed-in user—for an environment. It is specific about the resource and output but does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like cs_env_list or cs_auth_who.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied by the purpose and by the note that it runs 'pac env who' with the active pac auth profile. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no named alternatives such as cs_env_list or cs_auth_who.

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