PowerPlatform MCP

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It fails to indicate whether this is a read-only operation, does not describe pagination behavior (despite maxRecords parameter implying it), and omits any mention of default sorting, rate limiting, or the scope of 'history' returned.

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?

While the single sentence is efficient and front-loaded, it is undersized for the tool's complexity (6 parameters, numerous similar siblings, output schema). Given the contextual density required, the description lacks necessary elaboration to guide proper usage.

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?

Despite having an output schema (reducing the need to describe return values), the description is incomplete given the crowded sibling namespace. It fails to clarify that this retrieves multiple historical runs versus single-run details, and omits behavioral constraints that annotations would typically cover.

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, documenting all 6 parameters including date formats and status values. The description itself adds no parameter-specific context, but given the comprehensive schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 (flow run history for a Power Automate flow). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from similar sibling tools like 'get-flow-run-details' (which likely retrieves specific run details rather than history lists) or 'get-flows' (which retrieves flows rather than runs).

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 alternatives such as 'get-flow-run-details' for specific run inspection, or 'resubmit-flow-run' for retry scenarios. No prerequisites, filtering recommendations, or exclusions are mentioned.

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