Dynamics 365 Finance & Operations MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It mentions a return dictionary but doesn't detail what it contains (e.g., success/failure, record ID, errors), nor does it cover permissions, rate limits, or side effects like data validation. This is inadequate 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.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-structured with a clear opening sentence and bullet points for Args and Returns. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, though the parameter explanations could be more succinct, and the Returns section is vague.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the return value structure, error handling, or how it interacts with siblings like d365fo_get_entity_record. For a create operation in a system like D365FO, more context is needed.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists all four parameters and provides examples for entity_name (e.g., 'CustomersV3'), clarifies data as field names and values, and notes profile is optional. However, it lacks details on data format constraints or profile usage, leaving gaps.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool creates a new record in a D365 Finance & Operations data entity, specifying the verb 'create' and resource 'record'. It distinguishes from siblings like d365fo_update_entity_record and d365fo_delete_entity_record by focusing on creation, though it doesn't explicitly contrast them.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like d365fo_update_entity_record or d365fo_call_action. The description lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing an existing entity or profile, or when creation is appropriate over other operations.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.