PowerPlatform MCP

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 but fails to state whether this is read-only (implied by 'Get' but not confirmed), what the return format is, whether results include system vs custom steps, or performance characteristics. The scope 'across all assemblies' hints at potential volume but lacks explicit warnings about large result sets.

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 a single 12-word sentence that is front-loaded with the action verb. While efficient, it is arguably underspecified given the absence of annotations and output schema—additional sentences covering behavioral traits or return values would earn their place.

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 absence of both annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient for a tool retrieving technical configuration objects (plugin steps). It fails to explain return structure, pagination behavior, or environment selection implications, leaving significant gaps an agent would need to infer through trial and error.

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 100% schema description coverage, the input parameters (includeDisabled, maxRecords, environment) are fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter-specific context, which aligns with the baseline score of 3 when schema coverage is comprehensive.

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 action (Get) and resource (plugin SDK message processing steps) with specific scope (across all assemblies). It implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like get-entity-plugin-pipeline (entity-scoped) and get-plugin-assemblies (returns assemblies, not steps) by emphasizing 'all assemblies,' though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 siblings such as get-entity-plugin-pipeline (for entity-specific steps) or get-plugin-assembly-complete (for assembly details). It omits prerequisites, warnings about performance in large environments, or filtering recommendations despite retrieving ALL steps across ALL assemblies.

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