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. It clearly describes the tool's read-only nature (getting progress) and output format (dictionary with sync progress), but lacks details on error handling (e.g., what happens if session_id is invalid), rate limits, or authentication requirements. It adds basic behavioral context but misses operational specifics.

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 upfront, followed by concise Arg and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the tool's function and output details, while the parameter explanations are necessary given the lack of schema descriptions. No redundant or verbose content is present.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description provides a basic but incomplete picture. It covers the purpose, parameters, and return type adequately for a simple read operation, but lacks details on error conditions, performance implications, or how the progress data is structured in the returned dictionary. For a tool with 2 parameters and 0% schema coverage, it meets minimum viability but has clear gaps.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'session_id' as 'Session ID of the sync operation to check progress for' and 'profile' as 'Configuration profile to use (optional - uses default profile if not specified)', adding clear meaning beyond the schema's minimal titles. However, it does not specify format constraints (e.g., session_id structure) or profile options, leaving some gaps.

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 specific action ('Get detailed progress information') and resource ('for a specific sync session'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'd365fo_get_sync_history' (historical data) and 'd365fo_list_sync_sessions' (listing sessions). It specifies the exact information returned (phase, completion percentage, items processed, estimated time remaining), making the purpose unambiguous and distinct.

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 when monitoring an ongoing sync session, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'd365fo_get_sync_history' for completed sessions or 'd365fo_cancel_sync' for stopping a session. It mentions the optional 'profile' parameter but provides no guidance on when to specify it versus using the default.

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