Dataverse MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'filtering options' and 'supports filtering by business unit, team type, and system-managed status,' which adds some context beyond the schema. However, it does not cover important aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, or pagination behavior, leaving gaps in transparency.

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 with three sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence adds value: the first states the action, the second provides usage contexts, and the third details filtering support. There is no wasted text, though it could be slightly more structured for clarity.

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 tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and filtering capabilities but lacks details on behavioral traits, output format, and explicit differentiation from siblings. This is adequate for a basic list operation but has clear gaps in providing full context.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, providing detailed parameter documentation. The description adds minimal value by summarizing filtering options ('business unit, team type, and system-managed status'), but does not elaborate on parameter semantics beyond what the schema already states. This meets the baseline score of 3 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: 'Retrieves a list of teams in the Dataverse environment with filtering options.' It specifies the verb ('retrieves'), resource ('teams'), and scope ('Dataverse environment'), but does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like 'get_dataverse_team' or 'get_businessunit_teams', which prevents a score of 5.

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 usage guidance by stating 'Use this to discover available teams, find teams by business unit or type, or get an overview of team organization.' This suggests contexts for use, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'get_businessunit_teams' or when not to use it, lacking clear exclusions or named alternatives.

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