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 burden of behavioral disclosure. While it indicates the scope of retrieval ('all related'), it fails to mention safety characteristics (read-only status), performance implications of fetching complete assemblies, or any side effects.

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, efficient sentence that is front-loaded with the action verb. Every word serves a purpose, with zero redundancy or filler content.

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 and 100% parameter coverage, the description adequately explains what makes this 'complete' versus other retrieval tools. However, it lacks safety/behavioral context that would normally be covered by annotations or additional description text.

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 100%, establishing a baseline of 3. The description reinforces the 'by name' lookup semantics for the required assemblyName parameter and implies the comprehensive nature of the retrieval, but does not add significant syntax, format, or usage details beyond the 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 uses a specific verb ('Get'), identifies the resource ('plugin assembly'), and clearly distinguishes from siblings by specifying 'by name' (singular lookup vs. the plural 'get-plugin-assemblies') and 'with all related plugin types, steps, and images' (comprehensive retrieval vs. partial siblings like 'get-all-plugin-steps').

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get-plugin-assemblies' (which likely returns a list) or 'get-all-plugin-steps' (which returns only steps). There are no stated prerequisites or exclusions for usage.

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