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 reveals the default sort order ('ordered by creation date') and scope ('visible' implying permission filtering), but omits other behavioral traits like pagination behavior, performance characteristics, or response format details (though an output schema exists).

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 is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the action verb and packs in essential details: scope ('all visible'), domain ('PowerPlatform environment'), and behavioral ordering ('ordered by creation date'). No words are wasted.

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 tool's simplicity (single optional parameter, read-only list operation) and the presence of an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It appropriately covers the key behavioral nuance (creation date ordering). A brief distinction from the singular 'get-solution' sibling would achieve full completeness, but the current state is adequate for correct invocation.

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 for its single parameter ('environment'), establishing a baseline score of 3. The tool description mentions 'in the PowerPlatform environment,' providing contextual linkage to the parameter, but does not add syntax details, validation rules, 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 clearly states the specific action ('Get'), resource ('solutions'), and scope ('all visible... in the PowerPlatform environment'). The use of 'all' effectively distinguishes this from the sibling tool 'get-solution' (singular), indicating this returns a collection rather than a single item.

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 through the phrase 'all visible solutions,' suggesting this is for enumeration rather than targeted retrieval. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus the singular 'get-solution' sibling, and does not mention any prerequisites or exclusions for use.

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