Dynamics 365 Finance & Operations MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool retrieves a record but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, error handling (e.g., what happens if the record doesn't exist), rate limits, or performance characteristics. The description is minimal and lacks critical 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 and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by clear parameter explanations in a bullet-like format. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant or verbose language, 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?

Given 6 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers parameter semantics well but lacks behavioral transparency and usage guidelines. For a read operation with complex parameters, more context on errors, authentication, or output format would improve completeness.

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 meaningful explanations for all 6 parameters (e.g., 'entity_name' as the public collection name, 'key_fields' for composite keys, 'select' for field inclusion), adding substantial value beyond the bare schema. However, it lacks examples or format details for complex parameters like 'expand'.

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 a specific record') and resource ('from a D365FO data entity'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'd365fo_query_entities' (which likely returns multiple records) and 'd365fo_create_entity_record' (which creates rather than retrieves). The verb 'Get' is precise and unambiguous.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'd365fo_query_entities' or 'd365fo_search_entities' is provided. The description implies usage for retrieving a single record by key, but lacks context on prerequisites, error conditions, or comparisons to sibling tools.

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