PowerPlatform MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It successfully warns that this is a 'batch operation that may take several minutes' and discloses the aggregation logic (fetches run history, computes rates). It lacks explicit read-only assurance or rate limit details, but covers the critical performance characteristic.

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?

Three sentences with zero waste: action statement, computational details, and performance warning. Information is perfectly front-loaded with the core batch-scan purpose before the warning.

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 5 parameters (all well-documented in schema), no annotations, and no output schema, the description compensates adequately by specifying the computed outputs (success rates, failure counts). It lacks explicit return structure description, but mentions sufficient detail about the health metrics to inform agent usage.

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 does not mention specific parameters, but the schema fully documents daysBack, maxFlows, activeOnly, etc. No additional parameter context (like recommended values for large environments) is provided 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 the verb (batch-scan), resource (Power Automate cloud flows), and specific outputs (computes success rates, failure counts). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get-flows or get-flow-runs by emphasizing the aggregate 'health metrics' nature and batch scope.

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 WARNING about duration provides implicit guidance that this is for comprehensive health audits, not quick checks. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance comparing it to get-flow-runs or get-flow-inventory for targeted troubleshooting.

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