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 discloses that the tool retrieves historical data (read-only behavior implied by 'Get'), includes details like status and statistics, and mentions default/max values for 'limit'. However, it does not cover important behavioral aspects such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or pagination beyond the limit parameter.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by clear 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. Every sentence adds value: the first defines scope, and the parameter explanations provide essential usage details without redundancy. It is appropriately sized for a tool with two parameters.

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 moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, parameters with semantics, and return type. However, it lacks details on output structure (e.g., format of the dictionary) and behavioral aspects like error conditions, which would enhance completeness for a tool with no annotations or 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining both parameters: 'limit' (maximum sessions, default 20, max 100) and 'profile' (configuration profile, optional, uses default if not specified). It adds crucial semantics beyond the bare schema, including default values, constraints, and usage context.

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 the history of completed sync sessions including success/failure status, duration, and statistics.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('history of completed sync sessions') with detailed scope. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'd365fo_list_sync_sessions' (which likely lists active sessions) by focusing on completed sessions with historical data.

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 context by specifying 'completed sync sessions' and mentioning an optional 'profile' parameter, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'd365fo_get_sync_progress' or 'd365fo_list_sync_sessions'. It provides basic parameter guidance but lacks explicit when/when-not instructions or named alternatives.

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