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 effectively describes the search behavior (keyword-based, multiple searches, text matching), return format (dictionary with matching enumerations), and operational constraints (limit parameter controls maximum results). It doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling, but covers core behavioral aspects well.

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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, important instructions, examples, args, returns) but is somewhat lengthy. Every sentence adds value, particularly the search strategy examples and parameter explanations, though it could be slightly more condensed without losing clarity.

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 (search tool with multi-keyword strategy), no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description does an excellent job of providing context. It explains the search methodology, parameter usage, and return format. It could improve by detailing error cases or response structure, but it's largely complete for 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must fully compensate. It provides detailed semantic explanations for all three parameters: 'pattern' is explained with examples and search strategy guidance, 'limit' specifies maximum results, and 'profile' indicates optional configuration. The description adds significant 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 enumerations in D365 F&O using keyword-based search, with specific examples of what enumerations are (lists of named constants like NoYes, CustVendorBlocked). It distinguishes itself from siblings like d365fo_search_entities and d365fo_search_actions by focusing specifically on enumerations.

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 guidance on when and how to use this tool versus alternatives: it instructs to break down user requests into keywords and perform multiple searches, with detailed examples (e.g., 'customer status enums' → search 'customer' then 'status'). It also mentions using simple text matching, not regex patterns, and references combining results from multiple searches.

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