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 for behavioral disclosure. While it indicates this is a read operation ('Get'), it doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, whether this requires specific permissions, what happens if no modules are installed, or any error conditions. The description is minimal beyond stating what data is returned.

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. Each sentence earns its place, though the 'Returns' section could be more specific about the dictionary structure rather than just stating 'Dictionary with installed modules'.

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 simple read operation with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the basics but lacks depth. It explains what data is returned and the parameter usage, but doesn't provide enough context about authentication, error handling, or practical usage scenarios that would help an agent use this tool effectively in real workflows.

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 and only one optional parameter, the description provides meaningful context about the 'profile' parameter - explaining it's a configuration profile, optional, and defaults to the default profile if not specified. This adds substantial value beyond the bare schema which only shows the parameter name and type.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('list of installed modules in the D365 F&O environment') with specific details about what information is returned (name, version, module ID, publisher, display name). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like d365fo_get_environment_info or d365fo_get_server_config by focusing specifically on installed modules.

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. While it's clear this retrieves module information, there's no mention of when you'd need this versus other environment information tools, what prerequisites might exist, or any limitations on usage.

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