Dataverse MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that this is a mutation operation ('Converts') and specifies prerequisites (column type/format/data compatibility), which is valuable. However, it doesn't mention potential destructive effects on existing data, permission requirements, error conditions, or what happens to the column's properties beyond format addition.

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 perfectly concise with two sentences that each earn their place: the first states the core purpose, the second adds crucial prerequisites. It's front-loaded with the main action and wastes no words.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate basic information about what the tool does and prerequisites. However, it lacks details about behavioral outcomes (what exactly gets modified, error handling, confirmation of success) that would be helpful given the tool's complexity and potential data impact.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema descriptions, maintaining the baseline score of 3 for adequate but not enhanced parameter documentation.

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 ('Converts an existing text column to an AutoNumber column') and resource ('by adding an AutoNumberFormat'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'create_autonumber_column' (which creates new) or 'update_autonumber_format' (which modifies existing). It precisely defines the transformation operation.

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 clear context for when to use it ('The column must be a String type with Text format and should be empty or contain compatible data'), which implicitly distinguishes it from creation tools. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name specific alternative tools like 'create_autonumber_column' for new columns.

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