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 this is a read operation ('Get'), but doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'active' means (e.g., time window, session states). The return format is vaguely described as a 'Dictionary,' lacking details on structure or pagination.

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 core purpose in the first sentence and parameter details in a structured 'Args'/'Returns' format. No wasted sentences, though the 'Returns' section could be slightly more informative.

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 (listing active sessions), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but has gaps. It covers the basic purpose and parameter, but lacks behavioral details (e.g., permissions, errors) and clearer return value explanation, which would help the agent use it effectively.

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 only 1 parameter and 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by explaining the 'profile' parameter's purpose ('Configuration profile to use'), optionality, and default behavior ('uses default profile if not specified'). This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema.

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 ('list of all currently active sync sessions'), including what information is returned (status, progress, and details). It distinguishes from some siblings like 'd365fo_get_sync_history' or 'd365fo_get_sync_progress' by focusing on active sessions, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from all related tools.

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?

No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the description implies it's for active sessions, it doesn't mention when to choose this over 'd365fo_get_sync_history' (historical data) or 'd365fo_get_sync_progress' (progress of specific sessions), leaving usage context unclear.

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