cs_list_solutionsLists solutions in a Power Platform environment, showing version and managed flag. Specify an environment ID or URL, or use the active PAC auth profile.
pac solution list: solutions in an environment with version and managed flag. Needs a pac auth profile.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| environment | No | Environment id or URL. Defaults to the active pac auth profile. | |
| includeSystem | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals an authentication requirement and indicates the output contains version and managed flag, but it does not describe error cases, read-only guarantees, or behavior for optional inputs like includeSystem.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and front-loaded with the main actionable phrase, and every sentence adds some information. The opening 'pac solution list' is somewhat redundant with the tool name, but the overall size is appropriate.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, auth, and core returned fields. However, the semantics of includeSystem are absent and no guidance on expected output structure is provided beyond version/managed flag.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 50%; the environment parameter is described in the schema, but the description adds little beyond restating the environment context. includeSystem is left completely undocumented in both the schema and description, so the description does not compensate for the schema gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the verb (list) and resource (solutions in an environment), and adds that results include version and managed flag. However, it does not differentiate this from closely related sibling tools such as cs_describe_solution or cs_check_solution.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides a clear prerequisite ('Needs a pac auth profile') and implies the tool is used to list solutions, but it does not specify when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.