Dataverse MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states this is an update operation but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether changes are reversible, error conditions, or rate limits. The mention of 'without changing the actual privileges' adds some context but is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 purpose with examples, and the second clarifies the scope regarding privileges. It's front-loaded and wastes no words, though it could be slightly more concise by integrating the privilege clarification into the main sentence.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and scope but lacks behavioral details like permissions, side effects, or response format. Given the complexity of updating security roles, more guidance on usage and constraints would be beneficial.

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 documents all 7 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, such as format details or usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 ('Updates'), resource ('existing security role'), and scope ('properties and configuration') with specific examples like name, description, auto-assignment behavior, and inheritance settings. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_dataverse_role' (creation) and 'delete_dataverse_role' (deletion) by focusing on modification.

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 for modifying role settings without changing privileges, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'add_privileges_to_role' or 'replace_role_privileges'. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving some ambiguity about context.

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