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. It states this is a read operation ('Get'), but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or whether it's idempotent. The description adds some context about what information is included, but lacks crucial operational details for a tool with 5 parameters.

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?

Well-structured with purpose statement followed by parameter explanations and return value. Every sentence adds value, though the 'Returns' section is somewhat redundant given the purpose statement already indicates what's retrieved. Could be slightly more concise by integrating the return information into the main description.

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, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description does a reasonable job explaining parameters and purpose. However, it lacks information about the return structure (beyond 'Dictionary with entity schema'), error handling, and operational constraints. Given the complexity, it's adequate but has clear gaps.

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 clear explanations for all 5 parameters: what 'entityName' represents (with an example), what the boolean flags control, and the optional 'profile' parameter's behavior. The description adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't explain parameter interactions or constraints.

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 the detailed schema') and resource ('a specific D365 F&O data entity'), including what information is retrieved ('properties, keys, and available actions'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'd365fo_get_database_schema' (database-level) and 'd365fo_get_entity_record' (data records rather than schema).

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 implies usage for retrieving entity metadata, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'd365fo_search_entities' (which likely lists entities) or 'd365fo_get_table_info' (which might provide different metadata). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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