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 explains the search methodology (multiple keyword searches with text matching), mentions that actions can be bound/unbound, and notes that the 'isFunction' filter 'may not be fully supported yet' - which is valuable transparency about potential limitations. However, it doesn't disclose rate limits, authentication requirements, or error behavior.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, but becomes verbose with extensive search strategy examples and parameter explanations. While all content is valuable given the 0% schema coverage, the 'Args' and 'Returns' sections duplicate information from earlier parts. Some sentences could be consolidated for better flow without losing essential information.

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?

For a search tool with 6 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description does an excellent job explaining parameter semantics and search methodology. It provides the return format ('Dictionary with matching actions') and practical usage examples. The main gap is lack of information about authentication requirements, error handling, or what the returned dictionary structure looks like.

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 must fully compensate. It provides detailed semantic explanations for all 6 parameters: 'pattern' gets extensive guidance on keyword extraction and search strategy; 'entityName' explains filtering by data entity; 'bindingKind' clarifies the three binding types; 'isFunction' distinguishes functions vs actions; 'limit' states it's a maximum return count; 'profile' mentions default behavior. This adds substantial value 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 searches for OData actions in D365 F&O using keyword-based search. It distinguishes from siblings like 'd365fo_search_entities' and 'd365fo_search_enumerations' by specifying it searches for actions (operations) rather than entities or enumerations. The phrase 'Search for available OData actions' provides specific verb+resource differentiation.

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 explicit usage guidance with the 'IMPORTANT' section detailing a multi-step search strategy for complex queries. It gives concrete examples ('posting actions', 'validation functions', 'workflow actions') showing how to break down requests. While it doesn't explicitly say when NOT to use this tool, the detailed search methodology provides strong contextual guidance for effective usage.

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