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 for behavioral disclosure. It mentions retrieving 'detailed information including all properties, addresses, and related information', which gives some context about return scope. However, it doesn't address important behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what format the information is returned in.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences: the first states the core functionality, the second provides usage context. It's appropriately sized without wasted words, though it could be slightly more front-loaded by integrating the usage guidance more directly with the purpose statement.

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 single-parameter retrieval tool with no output schema, the description provides adequate but incomplete context. It specifies what information is retrieved but doesn't describe the return format, structure, or any limitations. Given the lack of annotations and output schema, more detail about the response would be helpful for an agent to understand what to expect.

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% with the single parameter 'businessUnitId' well-documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as 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 tool's purpose with the verb 'retrieves' and specifies the resource as 'detailed information about a specific business unit'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_dataverse_businessunits' by focusing on a single unit rather than listing, but doesn't explicitly contrast with 'get_businessunit_hierarchy' which also retrieves business unit information.

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 guidance with 'Use this to inspect business unit configuration and hierarchy relationships', suggesting when this tool is appropriate. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like 'get_businessunit_hierarchy' or 'list_dataverse_businessunits', nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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