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 of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions filtering capabilities, it lacks details on permissions required, rate limits, pagination behavior, error handling, or the format of returned data. For a read operation with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with two sentences that efficiently convey purpose and usage without wasted words. Every sentence earns its place by adding specific value about the tool's function and context.

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 of a list operation with filtering and no output schema, the description is partially complete. It covers the purpose and basic usage but lacks details on behavioral aspects like data format, pagination, or error handling, which are important for an agent to use the tool effectively in the absence of annotations and output schema.

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 5 parameters. The description adds marginal value by mentioning filtering by 'entity, relationship type, and managed/unmanaged status', which aligns with parameters like entityLogicalName, relationshipType, and includeManaged/customOnly, but does not provide additional syntax or usage details beyond what the schema already specifies.

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 ('Retrieves a list') and resource ('relationships in the Dataverse environment'), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying its unique focus on relationships rather than other Dataverse components like tables, columns, or solutions. The mention of 'filtering options' adds specificity.

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 on when to use this tool ('to discover table connections, find custom relationships, or get an overview of the data model relationships'), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives. It implies usage for relationship-focused tasks without direct comparison to other list tools.

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