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 full burden. It states the action ('Reset') and return type ('Dict with reset confirmation'), but lacks critical behavioral details: whether this is destructive (e.g., clears historical data), requires specific permissions, has side effects (e.g., temporary performance impact), or includes rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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, with the core purpose in the first sentence and return details in the second. There's no wasted text, but it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating behavior from returns). It efficiently conveys essential information without redundancy.

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 complexity (a mutation tool that resets performance data) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'reset' entails (e.g., clears cache, zeroes counters), potential impacts, or security requirements. For a tool with no structured safety or output information, more behavioral context is needed to guide safe and effective use.

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 inputs (none). The description doesn't need to add parameter details, and it doesn't repeat schema information. A baseline of 4 is appropriate since no parameters exist to explain beyond the 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 verb ('Reset') and resource ('server performance statistics'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'd365fo_get_server_performance' (which reads stats) and 'd365fo_get_database_statistics' (which reads different stats). However, it doesn't specify what exactly gets reset (e.g., counters, metrics, cache) or the scope (e.g., all servers, current session), keeping it from a perfect score.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., admin rights), timing (e.g., after performance issues), or exclusions (e.g., not for routine monitoring). Without such context, an agent might misuse it or overlook better options among the many sibling tools.

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