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. It mentions the return type ('Dict with server performance data') but lacks critical behavioral details such as whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires specific permissions, potential rate limits, or what specific metrics are included (e.g., CPU usage, memory, response times). This is inadequate for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 brief and front-loaded, stating the purpose in the first sentence and the return type in the second. There's no wasted text, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating purpose from returns with a line break). Overall, it's efficient but not perfectly polished.

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 complexity (simple read operation with 0 parameters) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and return format, but for a server performance tool, it should ideally specify what 'performance statistics and health metrics' entail (e.g., uptime, load averages) to help the agent interpret results without an output schema.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the absence of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, and it appropriately avoids discussing parameters, earning a baseline score of 4 for not introducing confusion or redundancy.

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 ('FastMCP server performance statistics and health metrics'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'd365fo_get_server_config' or 'd365fo_get_database_statistics', which also retrieve server-related information.

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 siblings like 'd365fo_get_server_config' and 'd365fo_get_database_statistics', there's no indication of whether this tool is for real-time monitoring, historical data, or specific health checks, leaving the agent to guess based on naming alone.

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