Skip to main content
Glama
jgt87

Copilot Studio MCP

by jgt87
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Set the solution version in Solution.xml

cs_set_solution_version

Update the version in a local unpacked solution's Solution.xml explicitly or by gittags, filetracking, or solution strategy with pac solution version. Changes local files only.

Instructions

Update the version in a local unpacked solution's Solution.xml, explicitly or by strategy (gittags, filetracking, solution). Local file change only. Runs 'pac solution version' with the active pac auth profile.

Input Schema

TableJSON 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.
filenameNoTracker CSV for the filetracking strategy
strategyNoVersion strategy (see pac solution version help)
backgroundNoRun in the background and return a jobId immediately, for a command that takes longer than the client will wait. Poll cs_job_status.
buildVersionNoBuild version
solutionPathNoUnpacked solution folder or Solution.xml
timeoutSecondsNoDefault 600
revisionVersionNoRevision version

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

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that this is a local file change only and that it runs 'pac solution version' with the active pac auth profile, but it leaves out failure behavior, reversibility, validation, and whether existing version data is overwritten.

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?

The description is three compact sentences with the core operation and local-only constraint front-loaded. Every sentence contributes useful information without repetition.

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?

The definition gives enough context to understand the core operation, especially the local-file-only scope, and the schema is fully described. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the description should say more about side effects, expected result, or error conditions for a mutation tool with nine parameters.

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 the schema already documents all nine parameters. The description adds some meaning by mentioning explicit versions versus strategy-based versions and naming gittags, filetracking, and solution, but it does not explain most parameter interactions or formats beyond the schema.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: it updates the version in a local unpacked solution's Solution.xml. The phrase 'Local file change only' clearly distinguishes it from online-version or deployment-oriented siblings such as cs_solution_online_version, and the strategy names add concrete scope.

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?

The description implies when to use the tool by specifying local Solution.xml updates and naming strategies, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives like cs_solution_online_version or cs_upgrade_solution. Usage is inferable rather than fully guided.

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