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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the return format ('Dictionary with list of profiles'), which adds some value, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or whether this is a read-only operation. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose clearly, and the second provides return format. There's no wasted text, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating purpose and returns with a line break).

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 simplicity (0 parameters, has output schema), the description is adequate but minimal. It covers the basic purpose and return format, but with no annotations and multiple sibling tools, it lacks context on differentiation, behavioral traits, or error cases. The output schema likely details the return structure, reducing the burden.

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, and schema description coverage is 100% (though empty). The description doesn't need to explain parameters, so it appropriately focuses on the action and return value. A baseline of 4 is justified as there are no parameters to document.

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 list of all available D365FO environment profiles.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and identifies the resource ('D365FO environment profiles'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'd365fo_get_profile_names' or 'd365fo_search_profiles', which might have overlapping functionality.

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_profile_names' and 'd365fo_search_profiles' that might retrieve similar data, there's no indication of when this tool is preferred, what prerequisites exist, or any exclusions. Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.

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