Dataverse MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states this is a creation tool, implying a write operation, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether the operation is idempotent, error handling, or what the response includes (e.g., returns a business unit ID). This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a brief context sentence. It is efficient with zero waste, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating usage notes).

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 complexity (49 parameters, mutation tool), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not address key aspects like required permissions, response format, error conditions, or dependencies (e.g., parent business unit existence), leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to use the tool correctly.

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 fully documents all 49 parameters. The description adds minimal value by mentioning 'comprehensive configuration options including contact information, addresses, and organizational hierarchy,' which loosely maps to some parameter categories but does not provide additional syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Creates') and resource ('new business unit in Dataverse'), and specifies the scope ('comprehensive configuration options including contact information, addresses, and organizational hierarchy'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'update_dataverse_businessunit' and 'delete_dataverse_businessunit' by focusing on creation.

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 by mentioning business units are 'used to organize users and control data access in Dataverse,' which provides some context. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'set_businessunit_parent' for hierarchy changes or prerequisites for creation.

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