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 successfully communicates the filtering behavior (unmanaged/customizable roles) and optional inclusion of privilege details. However, it fails to explicitly state the read-only/safe nature of the operation or mention pagination behavior despite the maxRecords parameter.

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 two efficiently structured sentences with zero waste. The first sentence front-loads the core action and scope, while the second sentence concisely lists key capabilities (solution scoping, privilege details) without redundancy.

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 5 optional parameters and existence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and key behavioral distinctions (filtering, scoping). It appropriately omits return value details (handled by output schema) but could be improved by noting the read-only nature given the lack of safety annotations.

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 baseline is appropriately 3. The description adds conceptual value by mapping 'solution scoping' to solutionUniqueName and 'optional privilege details' to includePrivileges, but does not elaborate on parameter interactions or provide examples beyond what the schema already documents.

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 verb (Get), resource (security roles), and scope (PowerPlatform environment), while specifying the unique filtering behavior (unmanaged or customizable roles). However, it could more explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'get-security-role-privileges' tool, though 'optional privilege details' implies this tool focuses on the roles themselves.

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 implied usage guidance by noting the tool retrieves 'unmanaged or customizable roles' and supports 'solution scoping,' suggesting when to use these features. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or direct comparison to sibling alternatives like 'get-security-role-privileges'.

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