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 for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a deletion operation but doesn't mention permission requirements, whether deletions are permanent/reversible, rate limits, error conditions, or what the 'deletion result' dictionary contains. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 appropriately sized with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter and return sections. The Args/Returns structure is helpful, though the parameter explanations could be more detailed given the 0% schema coverage.

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

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

For a destructive operation with 4 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the deletion result format, error handling, permissions needed, or important behavioral aspects like whether deletions cascade or are audited.

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 provides basic explanations for all 4 parameters (entity_name, key_fields, key_values, profile) with examples for entity_name, but lacks details on format requirements, constraints, or how key_fields/key_values arrays must correspond. The description adds value but doesn't fully compensate for the schema coverage gap.

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

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

The description clearly states the action ('Delete a record') and target ('from a D365 Finance & Operations data entity'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'd365fo_update_entity_record' or 'd365fo_create_entity_record' beyond the obvious difference in operation type.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'd365fo_update_entity_record' for modification or other deletion methods. It mentions sibling tools exist but offers no explicit when/when-not instructions or prerequisites for deletion operations.

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