Dataverse Plugin MCP
Server Quality Checklist
Latest release: v0.1.0
- Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct resource and action: environments, projects, builds, registrations, steps, images, assemblies, packages, available messages, logs, and tracing. Even similar delete/update/list tools are clearly differentiated by their object type (image vs assembly vs package, etc.).
Naming Consistency5/5All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., list_steps, create_step, update_step, delete_step, toggle_step, configure_tracing). Compound verbs like open_registration_tool and push_plugin_update still adhere to the same structural pattern, maintaining predictability throughout.
Tool Count4/5At 24 tools, the set is slightly above the typical 3-15 well-scoped range, but each tool serves a distinct purpose within the plugin development lifecycle. The count is justified by the broad domain coverage, from project creation to deployment and diagnostics, without redundant or trivial tools.
Completeness5/5The tool set covers the full lifecycle: project scaffolding, build, registration (with a manual PRT step workaround), CRUD for steps and images, environment management, secure configuration, tracing, and a comprehensive xray_assembly report. There are no obvious dead ends or missing critical operations for the plugin development workflow.
Average 3.9/5 across 24 of 24 tools scored. Lowest: 2.9/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 2 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add
glama.jsonto the root of your repository:{ "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json", "maintainers": [ "your-github-username" ] }Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.
How to sync the server with GitHub?
Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.
To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.
How is the quality score calculated?
The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).
Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.
Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).
Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.
Tool Scores
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool returns build output, but it does not disclose side effects like writing to disk, potential failures, or requirements such as having the .NET SDK installed. This is limited transparency for a tool that performs a build.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that states the core action and return value. It is front-loaded and contains no fluff, making it highly efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity, the description covers the basic purpose, but it leaves gaps in parameter guidance, usage context, and behavioral details. With no annotations and a sparse schema, the description should compensate but does not. The presence of an output schema does not eliminate the need for more explanatory context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any parameters. It does not clarify that project_path is the path to the project or what configuration values are accepted. The parameter names are self-explanatory only to a limited degree, and the description adds no meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific action ('Build the plug-in project') and even specifies the command used ('dotnet build'). This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_plugin_project or push_plugin_update.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what it does, not when it should be invoked (e.g., after creating a plugin project, before pushing an update). It neither mentions exclusions nor alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation via 'List' but does not state side effects, authentication needs, pagination, or behavior when the step does not exist. This falls short for a tool with no annotation support.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence with no filler. It is appropriately concise for a simple list operation and every word adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema, the description is incomplete given the lack of annotations and parameter semantics. The role of environment in filtering or selecting the step is absent, and no usage context is provided. This would leave an agent uncertain about correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions the step concept but does not explain the step_id parameter or the optional environment parameter at all. The schema only gives names, and the description adds no clarifying meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's action: 'List the pre/post images registered on an SDK message processing step.' It specifies the resource (pre/post images) and the scope (a step), distinguishing it from sibling list tools like list_registered_plugins or list_environments.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given for when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions. The only implied context is that it involves a step, but there is no explicit mention of environment selection or relationship to sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It clarifies the scope (pre/post image, not the step) but does not mention whether the deletion is permanent, any required permissions, potential side effects, or reversibility. For a delete operation, this leaves significant gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that states the core action and scope without extraneous words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, focusing on the key differentiator (not deleting the step).
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations, incomplete parameter explanations, and presence of sibling tools, the description does not provide enough context for an agent to select and invoke the tool confidently. It clarifies the tool's scope but omits usage guidelines, parameter semantics, and safety/behavioral details, making it inadequate for effective autonomous invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage (only titles and types). The description does not explain the meaning or usage of image_id or environment parameters, nor how they relate to the 'pre/post image' concept. It adds no value beyond the parameter names themselves.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool deletes a 'pre/post image from a step' and explicitly distinguishes it from deleting the step itself ('without deleting the step itself'). This specific verb+resource+scope makes it distinct from sibling tools like delete_step and update_image.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context—use this when you need to remove an image attached to a step rather than the step itself—but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or provide any exclusions. The distinction from deleting the step is helpful but not framed as formal guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It only says 'List', which implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly confirm safety, mention return format, pagination, or any side effects. It also does not clarify the role of the environment parameter or whether the tool requires a selected environment. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the verb.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action ('List') and uses parentheticals to clarify technical terms. Every word serves a purpose with no redundancy or irrelevant content. It is appropriately concise for a simple list tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has a single optional parameter and no output schema, so the description should explain what the response looks like or what information is included. It does not mention return values, whether it returns both packages and assemblies in one call, or any details about the environment parameter. The description is incomplete for an agent to confidently invoke the tool and interpret results without additional assumptions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for explaining the 'environment' parameter. It does not explain what the environment parameter means, whether it's optional or required, or how it affects the results. The phrase 'in the environment' hints at scoping but does not clarify that the parameter can be left empty or what values are valid. This is insufficient given the lack of schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists plug-in packages and assemblies registered in the environment, using specific terms (pluginpackages, pluginassemblies) that distinguish it from siblings like list_plugin_types and list_steps. The verb 'List' is specific, and the scope 'registered in the environment' adds context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios or criteria for selection, nor does it reference any sibling tools for comparison. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the binary toggle. It fails to mention side effects, whether the step must already exist, idempotency, permission requirements, or the outcome of toggling a nonexistent step. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no redundant wording. It front-loads the action and clearly identifies the resource. While it could contain more detail, the existing structure is efficient and contains no filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is a mutation with 3 parameters and no annotations. The description is too terse to provide enough operational context. It fails to clarify how environment is used, when to use this over update_step, or what happens after toggling. The presence of an output schema does not compensate for missing usage and parameter context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema descriptions are absent (0% coverage), and the description does not explain step_id, enabled, or environment. The phrase 'enable or disable' clarifies the 'enabled' boolean, but step_id and especially environment semantics are left undefined, forcing the agent to infer from the parameter name only.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (enable or disable) and the resource (existing SDK message processing step). The word 'existing' distinguishes it from step creation tools, and the binary toggle action effectively differentiates it from create/update/delete step tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_step. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., listing steps to obtain step_id) or how the environment parameter affects selection. There are no exclusions or alternative tool references.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations available, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'List' implies read-only behavior, but it does not explicitly state that no modifications occur, nor does it mention permissions, environment dependencies, or return format. Basic but not rich context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the purpose without unnecessary words. It earns its place with clear verb and object.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has an output schema, so return values are covered. However, the description omits context about the environment parameter, any prerequisites for using the tool, and how it fits into the broader workflow of managing steps. It is adequate for a simple list tool but lacks important operational details.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the parameters. The phrase 'of a plug-in class' maps to plugin_type_name_or_id, but it provides no detail about the environment parameter or how to specify the plugin. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the parameter names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific verb ('List') and the resource ('SDK message processing steps (message/entity/stage) of a plug-in class'). It differentiates from sibling tools like create_step/update_step/delete_step by indicating a read-only list operation and clarifies the scope to a plug-in class.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as before creating or updating steps. It does not mention prerequisites like selecting an environment or the need for the plugin to exist.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'List,' which is a read-only verb but that is already implied by the name. It does not mention error behavior, permissions, or side effects. Since it is a read operation, the risk is lower, but the description still leaves the agent without explicit safety context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that states the action and the key input. No filler or redundancy. It is maximally concise while conveying the essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has an output schema, so return format is presumably covered there. However, the description does not clarify the role of the environment parameter or how this tool relates to sibling tools like list_registered_plugins. For a simple list tool, it is minimally adequate but leaves some gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description explains that assembly_name_or_id is 'the assembly's name or GUID,' which adds meaning beyond the bare schema. However, the environment parameter is not described at all. With schema description coverage at 0%, the description should compensate more fully for both parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific action: 'List the plug-in classes (plugintypes) of an assembly.' It also identifies the required input ('given the assembly's name or GUID'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_registered_plugins and list_steps.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'given the assembly's name or GUID' sets clear context for when to use this tool. It implies the user must already have an assembly identifier. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it stops short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It discloses a critical side effect: deleting the package also deletes every assembly, plug-in class, and step. It does not mention permissions or reversibility, but the cascade warning is highly valuable and directly addresses the main risk.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences long, with the critical warning front-loaded and no filler. Every sentence adds value: the first states the core action, the second highlights the cascading deletion.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the most important contextual point (destructive cascade) and leverages the output schema for return values. However, it lacks guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling delete tools and does not mention the optional environment parameter's role. For a destructive operation, one might expect more context on prerequisites or consequences, but the warning mitigates this.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. The description does not explain the parameters at all. The parameter names 'package_name_or_id' and 'environment' are somewhat self-explanatory, but no additional meaning is provided beyond the schema fields.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and the specific resource ('a registered PluginPackage (Nuget package)'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_assembly and delete_step, which target lower-level components.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is used to delete a full package but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives (e.g., 'use delete_assembly to remove a single assembly'). No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- 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 discloses two critical behaviors: cascade deletion of images and the permanent stop of plugin execution. This goes beyond a simple 'delete' statement and warns of irreversible side effects. It lacks details on authorization or recovery, but the core transparency is strong.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact, front-loaded with the main action, and uses a separate WARNING line for the critical consequence. Both sentences are necessary and serve distinct roles, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has a minimal schema and no annotations, but the description covers the main action and a major side effect. It falls short on explaining the environment parameter and does not mention alternative flows like toggle_step. Given an output schema is present, return values are likely covered, but the overall context has gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% and the description does not mention any parameters. step_id is inferable from context, but the optional environment parameter is undefined, leaving ambiguity about its purpose and necessity. The description adds no value beyond the schema's minimal titles.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: 'Delete an SDK message processing step' with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes from siblings like delete_image and delete_assembly by noting the cascade removal of images, making the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides a clear consequence (plug-in stops executing), which implies this is a permanent deletion, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives like toggle_step for temporary disablement. There is context about the impact, but no explicit when-not-to-use or sibling comparison.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It clearly implies a read-only operation ('List') and provides practical context about its role in create_step, but it does not mention permissions, error behavior, environment effects, or other side effects. The description is adequate but not rich in behavioral details.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is just two short sentences. The first sentence states the operation and scope, and the second provides practical usage context. There is no redundant filler or repetition of the tool name, making it concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has an output schema, so return values need not be explained in the description. Given the simple listing purpose and the useful note about create_step, the description covers the essential context. However, it omits any guidance about the environment parameter and does not discuss alternatives, so it is not fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the role of the 'entity' parameter by referring to 'a table' and clarifies that the output is intended as the 'message' argument for create_step(). However, the optional 'environment' parameter is not mentioned at all, leaving a semantic gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'List' and identifies a clear resource: 'Dataverse message names ... supported by a table,' with concrete examples (Create, Update, Delete, Assign). It also distinguishes this from sibling tools by explicitly connecting the output to create_step(), making the tool's purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The second sentence directly states when to use this tool: 'Useful to know what to pass as message to create_step() before attempting to register it.' This provides clear contextual guidance for the agent. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the workflow-oriented instruction is strong.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the upsert behavior (creates or updates) and the key fact that the value is not shown in the PRT/UI, which is valuable context. However, it does not mention permissions, error handling, or side effects, leaving some gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, and the second explains the create/update behavior. It consists of two sentences with no filler or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the main purpose and a key behavioral trait (hidden from UI), which is adequate for a simple upsert tool. Yet with no annotations and a 0% parameter coverage, it leaves the environment parameter and return values unexplained. Overall it is minimally viable but not rich.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate by explaining the parameters. It only indirectly implies step_id and value through the sentence 'Set the Secure Configuration of a step', and it does not mention the optional environment parameter at all. This is insufficient for an agent to construct proper calls.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool sets the Secure Configuration of a step, with a specific verb and resource. It further distinguishes the tool by explaining that the data is hidden from the PRT/UI, setting it apart from general step update tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description conveys when to use the tool: when setting a step's secure configuration. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the unique 'secure configuration' scope makes the intended context clear enough. It also clarifies the create-or-update behavior, which helps the agent know it's safe to call regardless of whether a record exists.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description discloses critical update semantics: optional parameters are only changed if provided, and empty string explicitly clears filtering_attributes and configuration. This goes beyond the schema and reveals non-obvious behavior, though it does not cover permission requirements or error handling.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and then a concise clarification. No filler or repetition, every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For an update tool with output schema present, the description sufficiently handles the main ambiguity (partial update semantics). It may lack detailed examples or per-field descriptions, but it is complete enough for the tool's complexity given that the output schema is available.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the general partial-update rule for all optional parameters and the special clearing behavior for two fields. However, it does not define the meaning of parameters like rank, stage, or environment, leaving gaps for a tool with 8 parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool updates existing SDK message processing steps, distinguishing it from create_step, delete_step, and toggle_step. The verb 'update' and resource 'existing SDK message processing step' are specific and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use this tool (to modify an existing step) but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. The general update behavior is clear, but no guidance on choosing between this and related tools like create_step or delete_step is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose key behavioral details: include_logs only returns something when tracing is enabled, and it appends the last 5 trace log entries with duration and error. It does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only or safe, but the nature of a report implies no side effects. The reference to configure_tracing() adds useful context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with the core purpose in the first line, then lists inclusions in a structured list. The include_logs explanation is separate and clear. It is slightly verbose but justified by the tool's complexity; no waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description thoroughly explains what the report contains and the special behavior of include_logs. It does not cover behavior for invalid assembly IDs or the environment parameter, but overall it gives the agent enough context to use the tool correctly for most cases.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains include_logs in detail but leaves assembly_name_or_id and environment undocumented. While assembly_name_or_id is somewhat inferable from the tool name and description, environment is not explained at all, leaving a significant gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool generates a complete report of a registered plug-in assembly, listing exactly what is included (metadata, classes, steps with all configuration, images). The verb 'Generate' and resource 'registered plug-in assembly' are specific, and the single-call nature distinguishes it from granular sibling tools like list_steps or list_images.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use this tool: 'in a single call' suggests it replaces multiple list calls, and the mention of configure_tracing() for include_logs indicates a prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it stops short of full guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that logs consume storage and recommends returning to a lower level after debugging, which are meaningful behavioral traits. It does not mention side effects on the environment or return output, but the core operational behavior is transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description opens with a clear one-sentence purpose, then provides level definitions and a storage warning. It is somewhat lengthy but each part earns its place; the multi-line format is acceptable for the extra context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers purpose, when to use, level semantics, and a key consequence (storage usage). With an output schema present and sibling tools providing environment selection context, it is mostly complete. Missing details are the meaning of the optional environment parameter and the return value, but these are minor gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides 0% coverage for parameter meaning. The description fills in the 'level' parameter thoroughly by enumerating 'Off', 'Exception', and 'All' with definitions. However, the 'environment' parameter is not explained at all, which leaves a gap for a 2-param tool.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Turn the environment's Plug-in Trace Log on/off' which is a specific verb+resource action. It also immediately notes 'required for list_execution_logs to work', helping differentiate this tool from sibling tools that perform logging or execution-related tasks.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives clear context: this tool must be enabled before list_execution_logs will function. It also advises switching back to 'Off' or 'Exception' after debugging, implying when not to keep it on. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when to use each level beyond the basic definitions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly indicates a read-only operation (via 'Read') and discloses the critical requirement that tracing must be enabled. It does not detail error conditions or permissions, but for a simple list/read tool, this is reasonable coverage. No contradictions with annotations exist (annotations absent).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: two sentences plus a parameter note. It front-loads the main purpose and the prerequisite, and every sentence provides useful information. No unnecessary words or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has an output schema (so return values are documented elsewhere) and only three optional parameters. The description covers the core function and precondition, but omits any mention of the 'limit' and 'environment' parameters, and does not clarify ordering or time window for 'latest'. This is a minor gap for a simple list tool, making it merely adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and no parameter descriptions are provided in the schema. The description explains plugin_type_name in detail (filters by typename, empty = all plug-ins), but does not explain 'limit' or 'environment'. These are fairly self-explanatory from their names and defaults, but the description only partially compensates for the lack of schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool reads the latest Plug-in Trace Log entries, specifying both the verb ('Read') and the resource ('Plug-in Trace Log entries'). It also clarifies the type of logs (Trace()/exception logs) and distinguishes this tool from other plugin-management siblings by focusing specifically on log retrieval.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides a clear prerequisite: tracing must be enabled, and it references configure_tracing() for setup. This gives contextual when-to-use guidance, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or specific exclusion scenarios. There are no direct sibling log-listing tools, so the prerequisite serves as the main usage signal.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description fully discloses that the tool does not perform a direct PATCH but instead reads, deletes, and recreates the image. It warns that the image ID changes and explains the undocumented platform error, providing exceptional transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized, with each sentence conveying critical information about the workaround, the ID change, and parameter behavior. It is not overly verbose, though the opening quotes around 'Update' are slightly odd.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a complex tool with no annotations or output schema, the description covers the key behavioral caveat, the changed ID, and parameter semantics. It doesn't fully explain the return value or the environment parameter, but it is sufficient for invoking the tool without encountering surprises.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, and the description compensates by naming the updatable fields (attributes, alias, type) and explaining that omitted parameters retain current values. However, the 'environment' parameter is not explained, and image_id is only implied as the target.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it updates attributes, alias, or type of an already-registered pre/post image, using a specific verb and resource. The phrase 'already-registered' differentiates it from create/delete siblings, making the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for updating existing images but does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives. It focuses on the API workaround rather than providing clear usage context or exclusions, so guidance is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It clearly states side effects: generates a net462 project, creates a sample class, signs the assembly by default, and does not register anything in Dataverse. It explains the 'name' constraint (valid C# identifier) and the rationale for 'sign'. Missing are behaviors like what happens if the directory already exists, but the provided details are substantial.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by concise behavioral details and parameter explanations. Each sentence serves a distinct purpose with no filler. The line break and parameter-specific formatting improve readability without adding bulk.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 3 parameters and no annotations, the description covers the core functionality, side effects, and key constraints. The tool is relatively simple, and the description explains both the primary action and critical exceptions (e.g., sign=False). It doesn't cover the 'author' parameter, but given the output schema exists and the tool is straightforward, the description is largely complete. Minor omissions like directory conflicts keep it from a 5.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by detailing 'name' and 'sign' with rich meaning: name becomes the project namespace and must be a valid C# identifier; sign defaults to True and generates a .snk key. However, the 'author' parameter is not mentioned anywhere, leaving a gap in parameter documentation for a tool that should cover all its parameters under low schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with 'Create a new C# Dataverse plug-in project', a specific verb+resource combination that clearly states the tool's function. It further differentiates from siblings by specifying 'under plugins/<name>' and noting it only generates code locally, not registering anything. This distinguishes it clearly from registration-related sibling tools like push_plugin_update and create_step.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides contextual guidance on when to use the tool by stating it only creates code locally and does not register anything, implying that for registration one would use other tools. It also gives explicit guidance on the 'sign' parameter, telling users to set False only for unsigned third-party assemblies. However, it stops short of explicitly naming alternative tools or stating non-usage scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It includes a prominent warning that a real record is created and the plug-in starts executing, which is a key behavioral trait. It also explains the effect of impersonation, but does not mention potential side effects like idempotency or reversibility.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with a concise opening sentence followed by a systematic parameter list. The warning is prominently placed. No redundant information, and each sentence contributes value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (11 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description covers the core purpose, most parameter meanings, and a critical warning. Missing explanations for three parameters (step_name, environment, asynchronous) and lack of return value info prevent a perfect score, but overall it is quite comprehensive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has no descriptions, so the description fills that gap for most parameters, providing examples and allowed values (e.g., plugin_type_name_or_id, stage, entity). However, it omits explanations for step_name, environment, and asynchronous parameters, leaving these partially unclear.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Register') and resource ('SDK message processing step'), and explains the binding to a plug-in class. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like update_step and delete_step by the action of creating.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The purpose implies usage for creating a new step, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_step or toggle_step. The warning about creating a real record is cautionary but does not provide contextual direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden and includes a WARNING that the tool replaces code currently running in the environment. It also explains item_type and file_path requirements. Yet it omits details about failure modes, permissions, or rollback capabilities, leaving some behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise but information-dense, with a clear opening sentence, parameter breakdown, and a warning. Every line adds value, and the structure is easy to scan.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, but an output schema, the description covers the most critical aspects: purpose, main parameters, environment selection, and the destructive warning. Minor omissions (project_path, configuration) do not severely impact completeness, but there is still room to explain the required project_path.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description compensates well by explaining plugin_id, environment, item_type, and file_path in detail. It even specifies conditional requirements (file_path required for Assembly). However, it leaves project_path and configuration without explicit explanation, though these may be self-evident.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Rebuild and push (upload) a plug-in that is ALREADY REGISTERED in Dataverse.' This clearly specifies the action (rebuild and push), the resource (an already-registered plug-in), and distinguishes from initial registration or build-only tools like build_plugin or create_plugin_project.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description emphasizes the prerequisite 'ALREADY REGISTERED' and references using list_environments() for the environment parameter. However, it does not explicitly mention when to avoid this tool or contrast it with sibling tools, such as build_plugin for building without pushing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits; it does state this is a state-changing operation ('set active'). However, it omits important details such as whether the selection persists across sessions, whether the index is zero-based, or any side effects like invalidating previously active environments. This is a minimal viable disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that states the action and critical parameter origin without any filler. Every word contributes value, making it highly efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has one simple parameter and an output schema, so the description need not explain return values. It covers the essential usage and parameter source. A minor gap is the lack of mention about side effects or persistence, but given the tool's simplicity, it is near-complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides only type 'integer' with no description (0% coverage). The description compensates by explaining that the index comes from list_environments, tying the parameter to a concrete source and usage. It could add clarity about indexing base (e.g., zero-based), but the semantic link is valuable.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Set') and the target resource ('authentication profile/Dataverse environment'), and specifies that it activates the environment based on an index. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_environments by focusing on selection rather than enumeration.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implicitly instructs the agent to use list_environments first by stating 'index from list_environments', providing a clear workflow. It does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool, but the context is sufficient for a tool of this simplicity.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- 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 does well by disclosing the dependency precondition and the fact that Dataverse rejects deletion otherwise. It does not mention irreversibility or auth requirements, but the key behavioral constraint is well covered.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact: two sentences, first establishes the action, second provides the critical usage caveat. No filler or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description adequately covers the main prerequisite and action. An output schema exists, so return value detail is not required. However, parameter semantics are weak, but the overall context for invoking the tool is clear enough given the schema and sibling context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the parameters (assembly_name_or_id, environment) or how to specify them. It only refers to 'assembly' generically. The schema provides names/titles but no semantic detail, so the description fails to compensate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool deletes a registered PluginAssembly, specifically excluding PluginPackage. This verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_package and delete_image. The qualifier 'without a PluginPackage' adds precision.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly explains when the tool works (only when no SDK message processing steps depend on the assembly) and instructs to delete steps first using delete_step(). This provides clear when-to-use and alternative guidance, exceeding basic usage notes.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden and does a good job: it reveals the registration semantics, the C# alias usage pattern, and key operational restrictions (PreImage unavailable for Create, PostImage unavailable for Delete). It stops short of stating side effects such as whether an existing image is overwritten or what return value is produced, so it is not a perfect 5.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with the one-sentence purpose, followed by compactly organized parameter definitions with examples. Every sentence contributes useful information, and the format is easy to scan without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with five parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides enough context for most use cases: it defines the domain-specific image types, alias behavior, and availability rules. It could be more complete by covering the environment parameter and describing expected return/success behavior, but it is otherwise solid.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Despite a schema description coverage of 0%, the description thoroughly explains four of the five parameters: step_id, attributes, image_type, and alias, including examples and defaults. The environment parameter is not explained, which leaves a small gap; still, this goes well beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Register a pre/post image on an existing step', which clearly identifies the tool's function and distinguishes it from siblings like update_image and delete_image. The purpose is unambiguous and actionable.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It provides clear usage context by explaining what step_id, attributes, image_type, and alias are used for, and it includes important conditional constraints (PreImage not available for Create, PostImage not for Delete). However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools such as update_image or list_images, so no when-to-use vs. alternatives guidance is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It explicitly indicates a read-only 'list' operation, which is non-destructive. While it does not detail authentication requirements or return formats, the simplicity of the operation makes the description sufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no filler or redundancy. It directly states the purpose and scope, earning a top score.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, simple list operation), the description fully covers the essential context. An output schema exists, so return value details are not needed. The description is complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters, so there is nothing to document. The description correctly implies that no parameters are needed, and the schema coverage is 100% (empty).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: listing authentication profiles (Dataverse environments) configured in the pac CLI. It uses a specific verb ('List') and a resource, and implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like select_environment, which performs a different action.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context that this tool lists configured authentication profiles, which implies it is the appropriate choice when you need to view available environments. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, but the purpose is self-evident and differentiates from sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It clarifies that the tool only opens a UI-based registration tool and does not perform the push update itself; it also instructs the user to copy the package/assembly GUID after registration for subsequent updates. This is more transparent than a simple 'Open PRT' but could still be slightly clearer about whether opening the tool has any side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. Subsequent sentences explain the workflow and why this tool is necessary, with no redundant or filler content. Every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (zero parameters, no complex schema), the description fully covers what the tool does, when it is needed, how it relates to push_plugin_update, and the expected post-registration action. It is complete for an AI agent to decide when and how to invoke it.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and the schema is empty (100% coverage). The description does not need to elaborate on parameters, and it instead provides contextual workflow information. This is appropriate for a no-parameter tool, meriting the baseline of 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Open the Plugin Registration Tool (PRT) for the FIRST registration of a plug-in package.' It clearly scopes the tool to first-time registration and explicitly contrasts it with 'pac plugin push', which updates existing packages, thus distinguishing it from sibling tools like push_plugin_update.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly states when to use this tool (first registration) and when not to use the alternative CLI command. It names an alternative (Visual Studio extension) and explains that no CLI command exists for creating a package from scratch. This provides clear usage guidance and exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
GitHub Badge
Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:
- Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
- Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
- Evaluate tool definition quality.
Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.
Card Badge
Copy to your README.md:
Score Badge
Copy to your README.md:
Latest Blog Posts
- Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)By Om-Shree-0709 on .mcpAgent IdentityOAuth 2.1
- Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an InternBy Om-Shree-0709 on .Agent IdentityMCP SecurityOAuth Delegation
- Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)By Om-Shree-0709 on .Agentic AiPrompt InjectionWebAssembly
MCP directory API
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/lucasjesus0311/dataverse-plugin-mcp'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server