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. It adds valuable behavioral context about granularity ('action-level outputs'), but omits safety indicators (read-only nature), performance characteristics (potentially heavy query for complex flows), or error handling behavior when IDs are invalid. The 'Get' verb implies safety, but explicit confirmation is absent.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste. The first establishes the core capability (detailed flow run info with action outputs), and the second adds the specific value proposition for failed actions. Information is front-loaded and every clause earns its 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 presence of an output schema (covering return values), 100% input schema coverage, and simple parameter types (no nested objects), the description provides sufficient context for invocation. However, without annotations, the description could have improved completeness by noting the read-only nature of the operation or any permission requirements.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage with clear definitions for flowId, runId, and environment. The description adds no explicit parameter guidance, but given the complete schema, it doesn't need to. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema fully documents parameter semantics without requiring elaboration in the description.

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 it retrieves 'detailed flow run information' including 'action-level outputs and errors,' which effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like get-flow-runs (likely a list view) and get-flow-definition (static configuration). The mention of 'failed actions' and 'detailed error messages' specifically positions this as a debugging/diagnostic tool.

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 scenarios through 'failed actions' and error message retrieval, suggesting when to use it (troubleshooting). However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this over get-flow-runs or prerequisites (e.g., that you must obtain runId from a previous list call), and does not mention alternatives like resubmit-flow-run for remediation.

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