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. It indicates this is a read operation ('Get') and describes what information is returned, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it requires special permissions, has rate limits, impacts system performance, or provides real-time vs. cached data. It adds value by specifying the return type but lacks operational context.

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 purpose statement, bulleted list of inclusions, usage guidance, parameter explanations, and return information. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, though the bulleted list could be slightly more concise. Every section earns its place.

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 moderate complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is quite complete. It covers purpose, usage, parameters, and return format. The main gap is the lack of output schema details (structure of the returned dictionary), but the description compensates reasonably well by listing the types of statistics included.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by clearly explaining all 4 parameters in the Args section. It defines what each boolean flag includes and clarifies the optional profile parameter with its default behavior. This adds essential meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 specific action ('Get comprehensive database statistics and analytics') and resource ('metadata database'), with a detailed bulleted list of what's included. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like d365fo_get_database_schema (schema vs. statistics) and d365fo_get_server_performance (server vs. database performance).

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 this tool ('to understand the overall state and health of the metadata database'), but doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools. The guidance is helpful but not exhaustive.

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