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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves details but doesn't describe what 'details' include, whether it's a read-only operation, error handling, or any performance or security considerations. For a tool with no annotations, this is insufficient, leaving significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the main purpose stated first, followed by structured Args and Returns sections. It avoids unnecessary fluff, but the 'Returns' section is vague ('Dictionary with profile details'), which slightly reduces efficiency. Overall, it's concise and well-structured.

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 parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description is somewhat complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameter, but with no annotations and vague return info, it lacks depth. The output schema should handle return values, so the description's vagueness is acceptable but not ideal.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by documenting the single parameter 'profileName' in the Args section, explaining it as 'Name of the profile to retrieve.' This adds meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't provide examples, constraints, or format details, so it meets the baseline but doesn't excel.

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: 'Get details of a specific D365FO environment profile.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('D365FO environment profile'), making the action unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'd365fo_get_profile_names' or 'd365fo_search_profiles', which limits its score to 4 instead of 5.

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. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'd365fo_get_profile_names' (which lists profiles) or 'd365fo_search_profiles' (which might search profiles), nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. This lack of contextual usage advice results in a low score.

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