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 the full burden and does well by detailing what information is returned (tables, columns, indexes, relationships, statistics, FTS5 data) and the tool's read-only nature. It could improve by mentioning performance implications or data freshness, but covers core behavioral aspects adequately.

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 and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by bullet points for clarity, usage guidance, and parameter explanations. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is largely complete—covering purpose, usage, parameters, and return format. It could slightly improve by detailing the return structure (e.g., nested dictionaries) or error cases, but is sufficient for effective use.

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?

Given 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates fully by explaining all 5 parameters: table_name (optional filtering), include_statistics (row counts/sizes), include_indexes (index info), include_relationships (foreign keys), and profile (configuration). It adds meaningful context beyond the schema's basic titles.

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's purpose with specific verbs ('Get comprehensive schema information') and resources ('D365FO metadata database'), distinguishing it from siblings like d365fo_get_table_info or d365fo_get_entity_schema by focusing on database-level metadata rather than individual tables or entities.

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 clear context for when to use the tool ('to understand the database structure before writing SQL queries'), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among the many sibling tools, such as d365fo_get_table_info for simpler table details.

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