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 states this is a listing operation but doesn't describe return format, pagination behavior, permissions required, rate limits, or whether results are cached. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic 'list' action.

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 with scope options, the second provides usage context. Every word serves a purpose with zero redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 read-only listing tool with full parameter documentation but no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate but minimal context. It covers the what and why but lacks details about return format, permissions, or system behavior that would be helpful for an AI agent invoking this tool.

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 fully documents all three parameters. The description mentions 'specific table or across all tables' which aligns with the entityLogicalName parameter, but adds no additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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: 'Lists all AutoNumber columns' with scope options ('in a specific table or across all tables'). It specifies the resource (AutoNumber columns) and verb (lists), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_autonumber_column' or 'convert_to_autonumber' beyond the 'list' vs 'get' distinction.

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 context ('Helps identify existing AutoNumber implementations') but doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_autonumber_column' (for single column details) or 'list_dataverse_columns' (for all column types). No when-not-to-use or prerequisite information is included.

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