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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns JSON with environment information, which is helpful, but lacks details on permissions required, rate limits, error handling, or whether this is a read-only operation (though 'Get' implies it). For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior and constraints.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. Every sentence adds value: the first states what the tool does, the second explains the parameter, and the third describes the output format. There's no redundant or unnecessary information, making it appropriately sized and front-loaded.

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 low complexity (1 optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but has gaps. It covers the basic purpose, parameter usage, and output format, but lacks details on behavioral aspects like permissions or error handling. Without annotations or output schema, it doesn't fully prepare an agent for all contextual needs, though it meets minimum viability.

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?

The description adds meaningful context for the single parameter 'profile', explaining it's optional and defaults to 'default' if not specified. With 0% schema description coverage (the schema only provides a title and type), this compensates well by clarifying usage and default behavior. However, it doesn't detail what a 'profile' entails or how it affects the output, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('D365FO environment information and version details'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'd365fo_get_server_config' or 'd365fo_get_profile' by focusing on general environment/version info rather than specific configurations or profiles. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with these similar tools, keeping it from a perfect score.

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. With many sibling tools like 'd365fo_get_server_config' and 'd365fo_get_profile' that might overlap in functionality, there's no indication of when this tool is preferred or what specific use cases it serves. The only implied usage is retrieving environment info, but no context or exclusions are mentioned.

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