Skip to main content
Glama
jgt87

Copilot Studio MCP

by jgt87
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Update settings.mcs.yml

cs_update_settings

Set settings.mcs.yml values by dot path. Preview the diff first, then confirm to write changes in Microsoft Copilot Studio agent workspaces.

Instructions

Set values in settings.mcs.yml by dot path, e.g. {"configuration.settings.GenerativeActionsEnabled": true}. Do not change authoringModel/recognizer/template. The first call changes nothing: it returns the files it would write, as a diff against what is there now, for the user to approve. Call it again with the same arguments plus confirm: true to write them.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
patchYes
confirmNoRequired to write the change to the file. Without it the tool returns a preview - the changed lines against the current ones, and the character count - and writes nothing.
workspaceNoPath to (or inside) the agent workspace. Defaults to CPS_WORKSPACE or the current directory.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.1.8
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
    • addedInput schema / properties / patch / propertyNames
      Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv0.1.7
    • addedInput schema / properties / confirm
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Required to write the change to the file. Without it the tool returns a preview - the changed lines against the current ones, and the character count - and writes nothing.",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
  3. First observedv0.1.5

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers the single most important non-obvious behavior: the first call is a no-op that returns a diff of files it would write, and the write only occurs on a second call with confirm: true. That is strong and unusual disclosure. It stops short of stating permission/auth requirements or whether writes are reversible.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then the field restriction, then the critical two-phase commit behavior placed last because it is the last thing an agent must act on. No filler.

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 usefully explains what the first call returns (files to write, as a diff). For a mutation tool with zero annotations, the confirm gate covers the key safety concern. Remaining gaps are minor (auth/permission prerequisites, error behavior).

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 67%, and the least-documented parameter is patch (bare object with no description). The description compensates by explaining the dot-path key syntax and demonstrating a nested example value, and it explicitly ties confirm: true to the write step. Workspace is left to its schema description.

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 ('Set values in settings.mcs.yml') plus the addressing mechanism (dot path) with a concrete example. An agent can tell it apart from sibling mutators like cs_update_agent or cs_update_flow, which target different files/objects.

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 explicit operating rules: the dot-path key format, the excluded fields (authoringModel/recognizer/template), and the two-step preview-then-confirm protocol with the exact argument to add. It does not, however, contrast itself against any sibling tool, so 'vs alternatives' is left implicit.

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