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. It adds valuable context about result organization ('organized by message and stage') but omits explicit safety declarations (read-only nature), error handling behavior, or performance characteristics.

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 consists of a single, information-dense sentence with zero wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action ('Get all plugins'), immediately qualified by the scope constraint ('on a specific entity'), and concludes with the organizational structure ('organized by message and stage').

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 presence of an output schema (covering return values) and 100% schema parameter coverage, the description provides sufficient context for invocation. The only gap is the absence of annotations, which a complete description might have compensated for with explicit safety or behavioral notes.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage, establishing a baseline of 3. The description mentions 'message and stage' which conceptually relates to the messageFilter parameter and output structure, but does not add substantive semantic meaning, valid value ranges, or usage examples beyond what the schema already provides.

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 provides a specific verb ('Get'), resource ('plugins'), and scope ('that execute on a specific entity'). It effectively distinguishes from siblings like 'get-all-plugin-steps' by emphasizing entity-specificity and the unique organization method ('organized by message and stage').

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 implies usage context through the phrase 'on a specific entity,' suggesting when to use this versus general plugin retrieval tools. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when-not-to-use or direct comparison to siblings like 'get-all-plugin-steps' or 'get-plugin-assemblies'.

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