MCP Dynamics CRM Server

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have distinct purposes with clear boundaries, such as dynamics_create_table versus dynamics_create_column, or dynamics_get_plugin_performance versus dynamics_get_slow_plugins. However, some overlap exists in monitoring tools like dynamics_get_system_jobs and dynamics_get_bulk_operations, which could cause minor confusion in selection.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent snake_case pattern with a 'dynamics_' prefix and clear verb_noun structure, such as dynamics_create_solution, dynamics_list_tables, and dynamics_update_column. This predictability makes it easy for agents to understand and use the tools effectively.
Tool Count2/5
With 51 tools, the count is excessive for a single server, leading to potential overwhelm and inefficiency. While the domain is broad, this many tools suggests poor scoping and could hinder agent performance due to complexity and decision fatigue.
Completeness5/5
The tool set provides comprehensive coverage for Dynamics CRM management, including CRUD operations for solutions, tables, columns, web resources, and plugins, along with monitoring, analytics, and system health tools. No significant gaps are apparent, supporting full lifecycle management.
Average 2.8/5 across 51 of 51 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.
If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.
MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states 'retrieves views' without disclosing behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, pagination, error handling, or what 'retrieves' entails (e.g., returns a list, single view, or metadata). This leaves critical operational details unspecified.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence in Portuguese with no wasted words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for its minimal content, though brevity contributes to underspecification rather than clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given complexity (a read operation with 3 parameters), no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return values, error conditions, and operational context, making it inadequate for reliable tool invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 33% (only 'entityLogicalName' has a description), with 3 parameters total. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema—it doesn't explain 'viewType' enum values ('system' vs 'personal') or 'viewId' usage. With low coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving most parameters poorly documented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Recupera views de uma entidade' (Retrieves views of an entity) states a basic purpose with verb+resource, but it's vague about what 'views' are (e.g., data views, UI views, or query views) and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'dynamics_get_forms' or 'dynamics_get_entity_analytics'. It's minimally adequate but lacks specificity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools include 'dynamics_get_forms' and 'dynamics_get_entity_analytics', which might retrieve related metadata, but the description offers no context on distinctions, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a query operation ('consulta'), implying it's likely read-only, but doesn't confirm this or provide any other behavioral context like authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior, or what happens when parameters are omitted. For a tool with 4 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is inadequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a basic tool description, though it could benefit from being more specific about scope or usage.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (4 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema), the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how parameters interact, what the default behavior is when parameters are omitted, or any constraints or prerequisites for using this audit functionality.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the 4 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description provides no information about what entityLogicalName, userId, top, or operation mean or how they should be used. While one parameter has an enum (operation), the description doesn't explain what these operation types refer to in the audit context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Consulta histórico de auditoria do sistema' (Portuguese for 'Query system audit history') clearly states the verb ('query') and resource ('system audit history'), establishing the basic purpose. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its many siblings (like dynamics_get_active_processes, dynamics_get_system_jobs) that also retrieve various system data, leaving the scope somewhat vague.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With 40+ sibling tools, including many other 'get' operations, there's no indication of what makes audit history distinct or when it's appropriate to query audit logs instead of other system data like processes, jobs, or views.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions monitoring bulk operations but fails to disclose critical behavioral traits: whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires specific permissions, how results are returned (e.g., list format, pagination), or any rate limits. The description is too minimal for a tool that likely interacts with system data.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence in Portuguese ('Monitora operações em massa (bulk delete, imports, etc.)'), which is appropriately concise. However, it could be more front-loaded with key details, and the use of 'etc.' adds slight vagueness, but overall it's well-structured without wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of monitoring bulk operations, no annotations, no output schema, and low parameter coverage, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, output format, error handling, and how it fits with sibling tools, making it insufficient for an agent to use effectively without additional context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has one parameter 'top' with 0% description coverage, and the tool description adds no information about parameters. It doesn't explain what 'top' means (e.g., number of results, limit), its purpose, or how it affects the monitoring. With low schema coverage and no compensation in the description, this is inadequate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Monitora operações em massa (bulk delete, imports, etc.)' states the tool monitors bulk operations, which is a clear purpose. However, it's vague about what 'monitor' entails (e.g., list, check status, track progress) and doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like dynamics_get_system_jobs or dynamics_get_import_job_status, which might overlap in monitoring functions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, timing, or compare it to sibling tools such as dynamics_get_system_jobs or dynamics_get_import_job_status, leaving the agent to guess based on the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions analyzing metrics but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, performance implications, rate limits, or authentication needs. This is a significant gap for a tool that likely queries system data.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, with no wasted words, though it could be slightly more specific to improve clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what metrics are returned, the format of the output, or any behavioral context needed for effective use. For a tool that analyzes entity data, this leaves significant gaps in understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds no meaning beyond the input schema, which has 100% coverage and clearly describes the single parameter 'entityLogicalName'. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score is 3, as the schema adequately documents the parameter without needing additional explanation in the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool analyzes metrics for an entity, specifying 'total de registros, usage, etc.' which gives a general purpose. However, it's somewhat vague about what specific metrics are included and doesn't clearly differentiate from sibling tools like 'dynamics_get_views' or 'dynamics_get_forms' that also retrieve entity-related information.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context (e.g., for monitoring or reporting), or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and description alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'importa' (imports), implying a write operation, but fails to detail critical behaviors: whether it's idempotent, requires specific permissions, has side effects (e.g., overwriting existing customizations), or how errors are handled. The description adds minimal value beyond the basic action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, straightforward sentence with no wasted words, making it efficient. However, it's front-loaded with only basic information and lacks necessary elaboration for a tool with multiple parameters and no annotations, slightly reducing its effectiveness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (4 parameters, 1 required, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the import process, expected outcomes, error handling, or how it interacts with sibling tools like 'dynamics_get_import_job_status'. For a mutation tool with significant behavioral implications, this leaves critical gaps for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 50% (2 out of 4 parameters have descriptions), so the description must compensate but doesn't. It provides no additional parameter context beyond what the schema offers (e.g., explaining the Base64 format or the implications of 'overwriteUnmanagedCustomizations'). However, since the schema covers half the parameters adequately, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, though the description adds no extra value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the action ('Importa uma solução') and target ('para o Dynamics CRM'), which provides a basic purpose. However, it's vague about what 'solução' entails (e.g., a solution package with customizations) and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'dynamics_export_solution' or 'dynamics_create_solution', leaving ambiguity about its specific role.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an exported solution file), when to choose it over 'dynamics_clone_solution', or how it relates to 'dynamics_get_import_job_status'. This lack of context makes it hard for an agent to decide appropriately.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 the tool lists components but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether it's read-only, pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens if the solution doesn't exist. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool operates.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence in Portuguese that directly states the purpose. It's front-loaded and wastes no words, though it could benefit from more detail. However, given its brevity and clarity, it scores well for conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and a list operation with potential complexity (e.g., filtering, pagination), the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover return values, error conditions, or behavioral aspects, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use the tool effectively beyond basic parameter input.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
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 both parameters ('solutionUniqueName' and 'componentType'). The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this, such as explaining what 'componentType' values represent or providing examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Lista componentes de uma solução' clearly states the action (list) and target (solution components) in Portuguese, which translates to 'List components of a solution'. It's specific about the resource but doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'dynamics_list_solutions' or 'dynamics_list_columns', making it somewhat vague in context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't specify if this is for enumerating all components or filtered ones, or how it differs from other list tools like 'dynamics_list_tables' or 'dynamics_list_web_resources'. The description lacks context for selection among siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Remove' implies a destructive mutation, but it doesn't disclose whether this is reversible, what permissions are required, or if it affects other components. It lacks behavioral details like error conditions or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, no wasted words. However, it's overly terse and could benefit from more detail given the complexity of the operation. The Portuguese phrasing might confuse non-Portuguese agents, slightly reducing effectiveness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what happens after removal, potential impacts, or error handling. Given the sibling tools, more context about solution management is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond what's in the schema (e.g., no examples or constraints). Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the action ('Remove') and target ('um componente de uma solução'), which is clear but vague. It doesn't specify what type of component or solution, nor does it distinguish from siblings like 'dynamics_delete_solution' or 'dynamics_delete_web_resource'. The Portuguese phrasing adds some ambiguity for English-speaking agents.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, dependencies, or what happens if removal fails. With siblings like 'dynamics_check_solution_dependencies', there's no indication of when dependency checking should precede removal.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'consolidated view of performance' but doesn't disclose what data is returned, whether it's real-time or historical, authentication requirements, rate limits, or potential system impact. For a system health tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence in Portuguese that communicates the core purpose. It's appropriately brief for a tool with only one parameter, though it could be more specific about what 'health' encompasses.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a system health monitoring tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what metrics are included in the 'consolidated view,' what format the output takes, or how this differs from other system monitoring tools in the sibling list. The agent would struggle to understand what to expect from this tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
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 the single 'timeRange' parameter with its enum values and default. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool provides a 'consolidated view of system performance' which gives a general purpose, but it's vague about what specific metrics or aspects of health are included. It doesn't clearly distinguish this from sibling tools like 'dynamics_get_active_processes' or 'dynamics_get_system_jobs' which might also provide system status information.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools that could provide system information (e.g., dynamics_get_active_processes, dynamics_get_system_jobs, dynamics_get_plugin_performance), the description offers no context about when this consolidated view is preferable to more specific tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 'Atualiza' implies a mutation operation, the description doesn't address critical behaviors: whether this requires specific permissions, if changes are reversible, what happens to existing data in the column, error conditions, or response format. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately front-loaded with the core action and target, making it easy to parse quickly. No unnecessary elaboration or redundancy is present.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (mutation operation with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what properties can be updated, how the update affects the system, what the response contains, or error handling. For a tool that modifies database schema elements, more contextual information is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 33% (2 out of 6 parameters have descriptions), and the description provides no additional parameter information. It doesn't explain what 'entityLogicalName' or 'attributeLogicalName' refer to, nor does it clarify the purpose of 'displayName', 'description', 'requiredLevel', or 'maxLength'. The description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the action ('Atualiza' - Updates) and the target ('propriedades de uma coluna existente' - properties of an existing column), which provides a basic understanding of the tool's function. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'dynamics_update_form' or 'dynamics_update_web_resource' beyond the resource type, and the purpose remains somewhat vague about what specific properties can be updated.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing column), when not to use it, or how it differs from related tools like 'dynamics_create_column' or 'dynamics_delete_column'. The agent must infer usage from the name and schema alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 the tool generates FetchXML but doesn't describe what happens with that output, whether it's returned as text, saved somewhere, or used in another process. It doesn't mention permissions needed, rate limits, or whether this is a read-only operation (likely, but not stated).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise - a single sentence in Portuguese that directly states the tool's function. There's zero wasted language or unnecessary elaboration. It's front-loaded with the core purpose immediately clear.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 6 parameters (including complex nested objects), no annotations, no output schema, and only 50% schema description coverage, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what FetchXML is, how the generated XML would be used, what the output format is, or provide any context about this being a Dynamics CRM/CE query language generator versus a general XML tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 50%, with only 3 of 6 parameters having descriptions. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema - it mentions 'parâmetros estruturados' (structured parameters) which hints at the complex object structure but doesn't explain what each parameter does or how they combine to create FetchXML. The baseline is 3 since schema coverage is exactly 50%.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Gera FetchXML com base em parâmetros estruturados' (Generates FetchXML based on structured parameters) states the action (generates) and output (FetchXML), but is vague about what FetchXML is and its purpose. It doesn't specify that this is for querying Dynamics data or distinguish it from sibling tools like dynamics_get_views or dynamics_list_tables that might retrieve data directly.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention that this generates query XML rather than executing queries, or when you'd use this instead of direct data retrieval tools like dynamics_get_views. There's no context about prerequisites or typical use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 states it retrieves forms, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't cover permissions, rate limits, pagination, error handling, or what the return format looks like. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely interacts with a database system.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence in Portuguese that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for its content, though it could benefit from more detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a Dynamics tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, return values, error cases, and how it fits with sibling tools. For a retrieval tool in a system with many related operations, this minimal description is insufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 67% (2 out of 3 parameters have descriptions). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain the meaning of 'entityLogicalName', 'formType', or 'formId' in context. With moderate schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate for gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Recupera formulários de uma entidade' (Retrieves forms from an entity) states a clear verb ('recupera') and resource ('formulários'), but it's vague about scope and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'dynamics_get_views' or 'dynamics_update_form'. It specifies what it does but lacks precision about what types of forms or in what context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, and it doesn't reference sibling tools like 'dynamics_update_form' for updates or 'dynamics_get_views' for related data. Usage is implied only by the action described.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the return format (Base64 ZIP) but lacks critical behavioral details: it doesn't specify if this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, whether it affects system state, potential side effects (e.g., locking), or error handling. For a tool with 12 parameters and no annotations, this is a significant gap 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Exporta uma solução do Dynamics CRM') and adds essential output detail ('retorna Base64 do ZIP'). There is zero waste—every word contributes to understanding the tool's function without redundancy or fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (12 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and output format but misses behavioral context, parameter explanations, and usage guidelines. For a tool that exports solutions—a potentially sensitive operation—more detail on permissions, effects, and error cases is needed to be fully helpful to an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is low at 17%, with only 2 of 12 parameters having descriptions. The tool description adds no parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema—it doesn't explain what 'solutionUniqueName' refers to, clarify the boolean flags (e.g., what 'managed' means or the impact of export settings), or provide examples. With poor schema coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving most parameters undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Exporta uma solução') and resource ('do Dynamics CRM'), specifying it returns a Base64 ZIP. It distinguishes from siblings like 'dynamics_import_solution' and 'dynamics_list_solutions' by focusing on export functionality. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other export-related tools if they existed, though none are present in the sibling list.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing solution), compare it to similar tools like 'dynamics_clone_solution' or 'dynamics_get_solution_components', or specify scenarios where export is appropriate (e.g., for backup or migration). Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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. The description only states it lists installed solutions but doesn't mention important behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, how results are returned (pagination, format), or any rate limits. For a list operation with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise - a single sentence in Portuguese that directly states the tool's purpose. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration. It's front-loaded with the essential information in minimal words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that this is a list operation with 4 parameters (0% schema coverage), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what parameters do, what the return format looks like, or any behavioral constraints. For a tool with this complexity and lack of structured documentation, the description should provide more context about how to use it effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the 4 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description provides no information about any parameters - it doesn't mention filtering options, pagination controls, or any of the actual parameters (managedOnly, unmanagedOnly, nameFilter, top). The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of parameter documentation in the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Lista' - Portuguese for 'List') and resource ('soluções instaladas no Dynamics CRM'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from other list tools in the sibling set (like dynamics_list_columns, dynamics_list_tables, etc.), which would require a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or how this differs from other list operations in the Dynamics CRM toolset. It simply states what the tool does without usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a mutating operation (implied but not explicit), permission requirements, side effects (e.g., impact on dependencies), or error handling. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that modifies solutions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence in Portuguese with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded and directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks critical context such as what happens after adding a component, error conditions, or dependencies. Given the complexity and lack of structured data, more detail is needed to guide an agent effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 60% (3 of 5 parameters have descriptions). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain the purpose of 'addRequiredComponents' or 'doNotIncludeSubcomponents', nor does it clarify component types or IDs. With moderate schema coverage, the baseline is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Adiciona um componente a uma solução' (Adds a component to a solution) clearly states the action (adds) and target (component to solution). It distinguishes from siblings like 'dynamics_remove_solution_component' (remove) and 'dynamics_list_solution_components' (list), but doesn't specify what types of components or solutions are involved, keeping it from a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing solution), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'dynamics_import_solution' or 'dynamics_create_solution'. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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. It states the tool creates a clone/patch with a new version, implying a write operation, but doesn't specify whether this is destructive, requires specific permissions, or has side effects like affecting existing solutions. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly, which is ideal for conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a cloning/patching operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on what the clone/patch entails (e.g., whether it's a full copy or incremental), the output format, error conditions, or how it interacts with sibling tools, making it incomplete for safe and effective use by an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('solutionUniqueName' and 'versionNumber') well-documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional semantic details beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without compensating further.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Cria um clone/patch') and resource ('de uma solução com nova versão'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'dynamics_create_solution' or 'dynamics_export_solution', which would require more specific context about cloning versus creating new solutions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'dynamics_create_solution' for new solutions or 'dynamics_export_solution' for exporting. There's no mention of prerequisites, use cases, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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. While it indicates this is a creation operation, it doesn't describe what happens after creation (e.g., whether the column is immediately available, if publishing is required), potential side effects, permission requirements, or error conditions. For a mutation tool with 13 parameters, this is insufficient behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that states the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with a clear primary function, though it could potentially benefit from additional context in a second sentence.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a complex mutation tool with 13 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what happens after successful creation, what permissions are required, whether publishing is needed, or how to verify the creation. The agent would struggle to use this tool effectively without additional context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 77%, which is relatively high, establishing a baseline of 3. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema descriptions. It doesn't explain relationships between parameters (e.g., that 'maxLength' only applies to String/Memo types) or provide examples of valid parameter combinations.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Cria uma nova coluna') and target resource ('em uma tabela do Dynamics CRM'), providing specific verb+resource information. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its sibling 'dynamics_update_column' or explain when to use create versus update operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'dynamics_update_column' or 'dynamics_list_columns'. There's no mention of prerequisites, permissions required, or typical use cases for creating columns versus using existing ones.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 creation operation but doesn't mention permissions required, whether this is a write operation, what happens on success/failure, or any side effects. The description is minimal and doesn't provide the behavioral context needed 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that states the core purpose without unnecessary words. However, it's arguably too concise given the complexity of creating a publisher in Dynamics, which likely has important behavioral considerations not mentioned.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
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 inadequate. It doesn't explain what a 'solution publisher' is in the Dynamics context, what happens after creation, whether there are dependencies or prerequisites, or what the tool returns. The context signals show this is a 5-parameter tool with 4 required parameters, yet the description provides minimal guidance.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 80% (4 of 5 parameters have descriptions), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. It doesn't explain the purpose of a 'solution publisher' or how the parameters relate to the publisher's function in the Dynamics ecosystem.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Cria' - creates) and resource ('um novo publicador de soluções' - a new solution publisher), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'dynamics_list_publishers' or explain how this differs from other creation tools in the set.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple sibling tools for creating various Dynamics resources (columns, relationships, solutions, tables, views, web resources), but no indication of when to create a publisher specifically versus other resources.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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. 'Cria' indicates a write/mutation operation, but the description doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like required permissions, whether the operation is idempotent, what happens on failure, or what the expected response looks like. For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with a clear primary function and gets straight to the point without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a complex tool with 8 parameters (4 required), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the relationship types (OneToMany/ManyToMany), cascade behaviors, or solution context. The description fails to provide the contextual completeness needed for an agent to understand this tool's full scope and implications.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 50% (4 of 8 parameters have descriptions), so the description needs to compensate but doesn't. The description mentions creating relationships between two tables, which aligns with referencingEntity and referencedEntity parameters, but adds no additional semantic context beyond what's implied by parameter names. With moderate schema coverage, the description provides minimal added value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Cria' - creates) and the resource ('um relacionamento entre duas tabelas' - a relationship between two tables), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like dynamics_create_column or dynamics_create_table, which also create different types of resources in the same system.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, when this operation is appropriate, or how it differs from other relationship management tools (though none appear in the sibling list). The description is purely functional without contextual usage information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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. While 'Cria uma nova solução' implies a write/mutation operation, it doesn't disclose permission requirements, whether this is an idempotent operation, what happens on failure, or any rate limits. The description provides minimal behavioral context beyond the basic action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence in Portuguese that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a basic creation tool and front-loads the essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a creation/mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what constitutes a successful creation, what gets returned (if anything), error conditions, or how this tool relates to the many sibling solution management tools. The context demands more guidance for proper agent usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 80% (4 of 5 parameters have descriptions), so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema descriptions, which adequately document uniqueName, displayName, publisherId, and version parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Cria uma nova solução') and target resource ('no Dynamics CRM'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate this from sibling tools like 'dynamics_clone_solution' or 'dynamics_import_solution' which also create solutions through different mechanisms.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple solution-related tools available (create, clone, import, delete, list solutions), there's no indication of prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or when other tools might be more suitable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 creates a new table/entity but provides no information about permissions required, whether this is a destructive operation, what happens on success/failure, or any system constraints. For a creation tool with significant parameters, this is insufficient behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that states the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with this level of complexity and gets straight to the point.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool that creates a new table/entity in Dynamics CRM with 10 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what a successful creation returns, what validation occurs, or how this tool relates to the broader Dynamics CRM customization workflow. The single sentence leaves too many contextual gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description provides no parameter information beyond what's in the schema. With 50% schema description coverage (5 of 10 parameters have descriptions), the description doesn't compensate for the coverage gap. However, since the schema covers half the parameters adequately, the baseline of 3 is appropriate - the description adds no value but doesn't make things worse.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Cria' - creates) and resource ('uma nova tabela (entidade) no Dynamics CRM'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'dynamics_create_solution' or 'dynamics_create_column', but the specificity of creating a table/entity is clear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools in the Dynamics CRM domain (like dynamics_create_solution, dynamics_create_column, dynamics_create_relationship), the description offers no context about prerequisites, sequencing, or when this specific table creation tool is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the action without behavioral details. It doesn't mention permissions required, whether this is a destructive operation, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. For a creation tool, this leaves critical gaps in understanding its behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence in Portuguese that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a creation tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects, parameter interactions, or expected outcomes, leaving too much undefined for effective tool use in a complex system like Dynamics.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 67% (4 of 6 parameters have descriptions), so the schema provides moderate documentation. The description adds no parameter information beyond the schema, not explaining relationships between parameters like 'fetchXml' and 'layoutXml' or what 'solutionUniqueName' does. Baseline 3 is appropriate given schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Cria uma nova view') and the target ('para uma entidade'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'dynamics_get_views' or explain what a 'view' is in this context, preventing a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'dynamics_update_form' or 'dynamics_get_views'. The description lacks context about prerequisites, dependencies, or typical scenarios for creating a view, offering minimal usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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. While 'creates' implies a write operation, the description provides no information about permissions required, whether the operation is idempotent, what happens on failure, or what the response contains. For a creation tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, this is a significant gap in behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that states the core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with good schema documentation and gets straight to the point.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a creation tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens after creation, whether the resource is immediately available, what permissions are required, or how it integrates with the broader Dynamics CRM workflow. The high schema coverage helps, but the description itself lacks necessary operational context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description provides no parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema. However, with 86% schema description coverage, the schema does most of the heavy lifting in documenting parameters. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate parameter documentation through the schema alone, though the description adds no additional semantic context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Cria' - creates) and resource ('um novo web resource no Dynamics CRM'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'dynamics_update_web_resource' or 'dynamics_delete_web_resource', but the verb 'creates' establishes the basic operation type.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, when this creation operation is appropriate versus updating existing resources, or how it relates to sibling tools like 'dynamics_generate_web_resource_code' or 'dynamics_publish_web_resource'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'Remove' implying a destructive mutation, but lacks details on permissions needed, whether the action is reversible, potential side effects, or error conditions. This is inadequate for a tool that deletes data without structured safety hints.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence in Portuguese with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and target, making it efficient and easy to parse, though it could benefit from additional context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like safety, permissions, or return values, leaving critical gaps for an agent to understand the tool's full impact and usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('entityLogicalName' and 'attributeLogicalName') clearly described in the schema. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond the schema, such as examples or constraints, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without extra value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Remove uma coluna de uma tabela' clearly states the action (remove) and target (a column from a table) in Portuguese. It's specific about what the tool does, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'dynamics_update_column' or 'dynamics_list_columns' beyond the verb 'remove'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, consequences, or sibling tools like 'dynamics_update_column' for modifications or 'dynamics_list_columns' for checking existing columns, leaving the agent without context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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. While 'Remove' implies a destructive mutation, the description doesn't specify whether this operation is reversible, what permissions are required, whether it triggers side effects, or what happens to associated data. For a deletion tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence in Portuguese that gets straight to the point. There's no wasted verbiage or unnecessary elaboration. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly stating it's a deletion operation for Dynamics plugin steps.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive deletion tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens after deletion, whether there are confirmation prompts, error conditions, or what the tool returns. The description should provide more context about this potentially irreversible operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100% with the single parameter 'stepId' fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter information beyond what's already in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no parameter information in the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Remove um step de plugin registrado' clearly states the action (remove) and target (registered plugin step) in Portuguese. It's specific enough to understand the tool's function, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'dynamics_remove_solution_component' or 'dynamics_delete_solution' which might have overlapping deletion purposes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are several sibling deletion tools (dynamics_delete_column, dynamics_delete_solution, dynamics_delete_web_resource, dynamics_remove_solution_component) with no indication of when this specific plugin step deletion is appropriate versus other deletion operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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. While 'Remove' implies a destructive operation, the description doesn't specify whether this is reversible, what permissions are required, whether it affects dependent components, or what happens to the solution data. For a deletion tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral aspects undocumented.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a single-parameter tool and gets straight to the point without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive deletion tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'unmanaged' means in this context, what the consequences of deletion are, whether there are dependencies to check first, or what confirmation/response to expect. Given the complexity and risk of a deletion operation, more contextual information is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
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 the single parameter 'solutionUniqueName' with its description. The tool description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, meeting the baseline expectation but not providing extra value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Remove') and target resource ('uma solução unmanaged do Dynamics CRM'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'dynamics_remove_solution_component' or 'dynamics_delete_column', which reduces clarity about scope boundaries.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'dynamics_remove_solution_component' or 'dynamics_delete_solution' versus other deletion tools. The description lacks context about prerequisites, consequences, or appropriate scenarios for this specific deletion operation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It confirms a destructive 'Remove' action but lacks details on permissions required, whether the deletion is permanent/reversible, side effects, or error handling. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words, making it easy to parse. However, the Portuguese phrasing ('um web resource do Dynamics CRM') might slightly hinder clarity in English-dominant contexts, though it remains structurally sound.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks critical context like success/error responses, confirmation prompts, or integration with sibling tools (e.g., 'dynamics_list_web_resources' for IDs), leaving gaps in operational understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'webResourceId' clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter context beyond implying the ID is for removal, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Remove') and target resource ('web resource do Dynamics CRM'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'dynamics_delete_column' or 'dynamics_delete_solution' beyond the resource type, and the Portuguese phrasing might cause minor ambiguity for English-only agents.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing web resource), exclusions, or relationships to siblings like 'dynamics_create_web_resource' or 'dynamics_list_web_resources', leaving the agent to infer context from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 the tool generates code but doesn't reveal important behavioral aspects: whether this creates files or returns code as text, what format the output takes, whether it validates inputs, what happens with invalid parameters, or any authentication/permission requirements. For a code generation tool with 8 parameters, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point. There's no wasted language, and it's appropriately sized for a tool with this complexity. However, it could be slightly more structured by front-loading the most critical information about output format.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a code generation tool with 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what format the generated code takes (file, string, structured object), how to use the output, or any constraints on the businessLogic parameter. The description should provide more context about the tool's behavior and output given the absence of structured metadata.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description mentions 'com base nos parâmetros fornecidos' (based on the parameters provided) but adds no specific parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema. With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description doesn't explain how parameters interact (e.g., how businessLogic integrates into the generated code) or provide examples of typical parameter combinations.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Gera código C# para um plugin do Dynamics CRM' (Generates C# code for a Dynamics CRM plugin). It specifies the verb ('gera' - generates), resource (C# code), and target (Dynamics CRM plugin). However, it doesn't distinguish this from its sibling 'dynamics_generate_plugin_project' which might generate project files rather than just plugin code.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, when this tool is appropriate versus other code generation tools like 'dynamics_generate_web_resource_code' or 'dynamics_generate_plugin_project', or any context about what should be done with the generated code.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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. It states the tool generates project files but doesn't describe what happens during execution: whether it creates files locally or in a Dynamics environment, if it requires specific permissions, potential side effects (e.g., overwriting existing files), error handling, or output format. For a tool that likely creates multiple files, this is a significant gap 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence in Portuguese that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Gera') and specifies the output types. Every part of the sentence contributes essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (generating a full C# project with multiple files) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the behavioral aspects (e.g., file creation process, location, permissions), output details, or error scenarios. For a tool with 3 parameters and nested objects in 'plugins', more context is needed to guide effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
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 parameters (projectName, namespace, plugins). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what's in the schema, such as examples, constraints, or relationships between parameters. It only implies the parameters are used to generate the project structure. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Gera a estrutura completa de um projeto de plugin C# (.csproj, classes, etc.)' which translates to 'Generates the complete structure of a C# plugin project (.csproj, classes, etc.)'. It specifies the verb ('generates'), resource ('C# plugin project'), and output type. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'dynamics_generate_plugin_code', which might generate code for existing projects rather than full project structures.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context (e.g., when starting a new plugin development), or compare it to sibling tools like 'dynamics_generate_plugin_code' or 'dynamics_register_plugin_step'. The agent must infer usage from the purpose alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 the tool generates template code with Dynamics helpers, but doesn't specify whether this creates actual resources, is read-only, requires specific permissions, or has any side effects. For a code generation tool with potential downstream implications, this is insufficient behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence in Portuguese that clearly states the tool's core function. It's appropriately sized for its purpose with zero wasted words or redundant information. The structure is front-loaded with the essential action and context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a code generation tool with 6 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the generated output looks like, how templates are structured, whether they're immediately usable, or how they integrate with the Dynamics ecosystem. The lack of behavioral context and output information creates significant gaps for an agent trying to use this tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
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 6 parameters thoroughly. The description mentions generating code for web resources with Dynamics helpers, which aligns with the 'includeFormHelpers' parameter and context, but adds no specific parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. 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.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Gera código template para web resources (JS/HTML/CSS) com helpers do Dynamics' (Generates template code for web resources with Dynamics helpers). It specifies the verb ('gera' - generates), resource ('código template' - template code), and technology context (Dynamics helpers). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'dynamics_create_web_resource' or 'dynamics_generate_plugin_code', which would be needed for a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple sibling tools related to web resources (create_web_resource, delete_web_resource, update_web_resource, get_web_resource_content, publish_web_resources), but the description doesn't explain when template generation is appropriate versus direct creation or management. No prerequisites, constraints, or alternatives are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It implies a read-only operation by using 'Lista' (List), but doesn't disclose permissions needed, rate limits, pagination, return format, or what 'ativos' (active) means operationally. This is inadequate for a tool with potential complexity in process management.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence in Portuguese that front-loads the core purpose. There's no wasted text, and it directly communicates the tool's function without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavior, output, error handling, or how to interpret results (e.g., what data is returned for each process). For a tool that might return complex process states, this leaves significant gaps for an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but both parameters have enums that self-document (e.g., processType with 'workflow', 'action', etc.). The description doesn't add meaning beyond the schema—it doesn't explain what 'processos ativos' entails or how filters interact. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the enums provide some clarity, but the description doesn't compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Lista' (List) and the resource 'processos ativos' (active processes), specifying the types of processes included (workflows, actions, BPFs). It distinguishes from many siblings that focus on solutions, columns, plugins, etc., but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other 'get' tools like dynamics_get_audit_history or dynamics_get_views.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or compare it to similar tools like dynamics_get_system_jobs or dynamics_get_workflow_performance, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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. It only states what the tool does (checks status) without describing traits like whether it's read-only (implied but not confirmed), what status values might be returned, error conditions, or performance characteristics. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence in Portuguese that directly states the tool's purpose with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (status checking of an import job), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what status information is returned, possible outcomes (e.g., success, failure, in-progress), or how to interpret results. For a tool with no structured output documentation, this leaves significant gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds no parameter information beyond what's in the schema, which has 100% coverage. The schema already documents the single parameter 'importJobId' with a clear description. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate—the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose as 'Verifica o status de uma importação de solução' (Checks the status of a solution import), which specifies the verb ('verifica' - checks) and resource ('importação de solução' - solution import). It distinguishes from siblings like 'dynamics_import_solution' (which performs the import) and 'dynamics_get_system_jobs' (which might check other job types), but doesn't explicitly contrast with all sibling tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., that an import job must already exist via 'dynamics_import_solution'), exclusions, or specific contexts. Usage is implied from the purpose but not explicitly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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. It mentions analyzing duration, errors, and frequency, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, output format, or whether it's a read-only operation. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence in Portuguese that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for its content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (performance analysis with three parameters) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return values, error handling, or behavioral traits like data freshness or access requirements, leaving the agent with insufficient context for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (top, minDuration, entityLogicalName). The description implies filtering by duration and entity but doesn't add syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: analyzing plugin execution performance by duration, errors, and frequency. It specifies the resource (plugins) and the type of analysis, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'dynamics_get_slow_plugins' or 'dynamics_get_plugin_trace_logs' beyond the general performance focus.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'dynamics_get_slow_plugins' for similar performance analysis or 'dynamics_get_plugin_trace_logs' for error details, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions for usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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. While it states the tool retrieves logs for diagnosis, it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits: whether this is a read-only operation, potential performance impact, authentication requirements, rate limits, or what format/log level the logs provide. For a diagnostic tool with zero annotation coverage, this represents a significant transparency gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise - a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. There's zero wasted language, and it's front-loaded with the core functionality. Every word earns its place, making it easy for an agent to quickly understand what the tool does.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a diagnostic logging tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what information the logs contain, how they're formatted, whether they include error details or execution traces, or what the return structure looks like. For a tool that retrieves diagnostic data, users need to understand what kind of diagnostic information they'll receive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
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 three parameters with their types and descriptions. The tool description doesn't add any parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain how parameters interact, provide examples of pluginTypeName values, or clarify the relationship between correlationId and other filters. With complete schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Recupera logs de rastreamento de plugins para diagnóstico' (Retrieves plugin trace logs for diagnosis). It specifies the verb ('recupera' - retrieves) and resource ('logs de rastreamento de plugins' - plugin trace logs), and distinguishes from siblings by focusing on diagnostic logs rather than performance metrics or other plugin operations. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar diagnostic tools like 'dynamics_get_plugin_performance' or 'dynamics_get_slow_plugins'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides minimal usage guidance. It mentions 'para diagnóstico' (for diagnosis), which implies a troubleshooting context, but offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'dynamics_get_plugin_performance' or 'dynamics_get_slow_plugins'. There's no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or specific diagnostic scenarios where this tool is preferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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. It states the tool identifies slow plugins but does not describe how it works (e.g., based on performance metrics, logs), what data it returns (e.g., list of plugins with durations), or any behavioral traits like rate limits, permissions required, or system impact. This is inadequate for a tool with no annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence in Portuguese that efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for its content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and incomplete parameter documentation (50% coverage), the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavior, output format, and usage context, making it incomplete for effective tool selection and invocation in a complex environment with many sibling tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 50% (one parameter has a description, one does not). The description does not mention any parameters, so it adds no semantic value beyond the schema. The baseline is 3 because the schema provides some documentation, but the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Identifica plugins que estão tornando o sistema lento' (Identifies plugins that are making the system slow). It specifies the verb 'identifica' (identifies) and the resource 'plugins', with the qualifier 'que estão tornando o sistema lento' (that are making the system slow). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'dynamics_get_plugin_performance' or 'dynamics_get_plugin_trace_logs', which might have overlapping purposes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or specific contexts for usage. Given the sibling tools include related performance and plugin tools, this lack of differentiation is a significant gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 states the tool monitors system jobs but doesn't explain what 'monitora' entails—e.g., whether it's a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, how results are returned (e.g., pagination, format), or any rate limits. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely interacts with system resources.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Monitora jobs do sistema') and includes helpful examples ('importações, bulk deletes, workflows, etc.'). There is no wasted verbiage, making it appropriately sized for its content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of monitoring system jobs, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., safety, permissions), output format, and usage context. While concise, it doesn't provide enough information for an agent to confidently invoke this tool without additional assumptions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds no information about parameters beyond what the input schema provides. With schema description coverage at 33% (only one parameter has a description), the description doesn't compensate for the low coverage. Since there are 3 parameters, the baseline is 3, as the schema provides some documentation but the description adds no value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
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 'monitora' (monitors) and specifies the resource as 'jobs do sistema' (system jobs), with examples like imports, bulk deletes, and workflows. It distinguishes itself from siblings like dynamics_get_active_processes or dynamics_get_bulk_operations by focusing specifically on system jobs, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing specific permissions, or compare it to sibling tools like dynamics_get_active_processes or dynamics_get_bulk_operations, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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. It states the tool analyzes performance and status, implying a read-only operation, but does not specify whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or details the output format. 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence in Portuguese that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of analyzing workflows and processes, the lack of annotations, no output schema, and low schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It does not provide enough context for an agent to understand the tool's behavior, output, or how it fits among sibling tools, making it inadequate for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description does not mention any parameters, while the input schema has 2 parameters with 0% schema description coverage. Since schema coverage is low, the description should compensate but does not, leaving parameters undocumented. However, one parameter has an enum ('statusFilter') that provides some semantic clarity, and there are no required parameters, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema offers minimal but not zero information.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Analisa performance e status de workflows e processos automáticos' clearly states the tool's purpose in Portuguese as analyzing performance and status of workflows and automated processes. It uses specific verbs ('analisa') and resources ('workflows e processos automáticos'), but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'dynamics_get_active_processes' or 'dynamics_get_system_jobs', which might have overlapping functions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the name and description alone, which is insufficient given the many sibling tools in this domain.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 the tool lists columns but doesn't mention any behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens when the entity doesn't exist. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration - every word contributes to understanding what the tool does.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 2 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, error conditions, or behavioral constraints. While concise, it lacks necessary context for effective tool invocation in a complex Dynamics environment.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 50% (only 'entityLogicalName' has a description). The description doesn't mention either parameter or provide any additional semantic context about what 'customOnly' means or how entity names should be formatted. It doesn't compensate for the schema's gaps, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Lista' - list) and resource ('colunas de uma tabela' - columns of a table). It's specific about what the tool does, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'dynamics_get_forms' or 'dynamics_get_views' which also retrieve metadata.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the sibling list includes many metadata retrieval tools (like 'dynamics_list_tables', 'dynamics_list_solutions'), the description offers no comparison or context for choosing this specific column-listing tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. The description only states what the tool does ('Lista os assemblies'), but doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions might be required, whether results are paginated, or what format the output takes. For a listing tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence in Portuguese that clearly states the tool's purpose. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration - every word contributes to understanding what the tool does.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a listing tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It doesn't explain what information is returned about plugin assemblies, whether results are filtered or paginated, or what the typical use cases are. Given the context of multiple similar listing tools in the sibling set, more differentiation would be helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
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 both parameters (assemblyName and entityLogicalName) with descriptions in Portuguese. The tool description doesn't add any parameter information beyond what's in the schema, but since schema coverage is complete, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Lista' - lists) and resource ('assemblies de plugins registrados no Dynamics CRM'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'dynamics_list_plugin_steps' or 'dynamics_list_plugin_types', which are related but distinct listing operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple sibling listing tools (e.g., dynamics_list_plugin_steps, dynamics_list_plugin_types, dynamics_list_solutions), there's no indication of what makes this tool distinct or when it should be preferred over other listing operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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. It states the tool lists plugin types, implying a read-only operation, but does not mention any behavioral traits like permissions needed, rate limits, pagination, or output format. 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence in Portuguese that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and wastes no space, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that likely returns a list of plugin types. It does not cover behavioral aspects, usage context, or output details, leaving the agent with insufficient information to fully understand the tool's operation and results.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'assemblyId' documented as 'ID do assembly'. The description does not add any further meaning or context beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or sourcing details, so it meets the baseline for adequate but not enhanced parameter semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Lista os tipos de plugins') and resource ('de um assembly'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'dynamics_list_plugin_assemblies' or 'dynamics_list_plugin_steps', which reduces clarity in distinguishing its exact scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as other 'list' tools in the sibling set. It lacks context on prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons, leaving the agent to infer usage based solely on the tool name and description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states it lists publishers without disclosing behavioral traits like whether it's read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or what format the output takes. This is inadequate for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence in Portuguese with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple listing tool and front-loaded with the core action, though it could benefit from more detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and a simple input schema with one parameter, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'publishers' are, how results are returned, or any behavioral context, making it insufficient for an agent to use the tool effectively without additional inference.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With only one parameter and 0% schema description coverage, the description doesn't mention the parameter at all. However, since there's only one parameter and it's optional with a default value, the baseline is high. The description doesn't add meaning beyond the schema, but the minimal parameter count keeps the score from being lower.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Lista publicadores disponíveis' (List available publishers) states a clear verb ('Lista') and resource ('publicadores'), but it's vague about scope and doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'dynamics_list_solutions' or 'dynamics_list_tables'. It lacks specificity about what 'publishers' are in this context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools for listing different resources (e.g., solutions, tables, columns), the description offers no context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess based on the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 it's a list operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like pagination (implied by 'top' parameter), rate limits, authentication needs, or what the output looks like. This leaves significant gaps for agent understanding.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence in Portuguese that directly states the tool's purpose. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with no wasted words, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and 3 parameters (one without schema description), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, behavioral constraints, or usage context, leaving the agent with insufficient information to properly invoke this tool in the broader Dynamics CRM ecosystem.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 67% (2 of 3 parameters have descriptions). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. With moderate schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema does most of the work, but the description doesn't compensate for the undocumented 'top' parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Lista' - List) and resource ('tabelas (entidades) do Dynamics CRM'), making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from other list tools in the sibling set like 'dynamics_list_columns' or 'dynamics_list_solutions', which would be needed for 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.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools available, including other list operations, there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions that would help an agent choose appropriately.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It states it's a list operation with optional filters, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't disclose pagination (the 'top' parameter suggests it), rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens if no filters are applied (e.g., returns all web resources). The description lacks details on output format, error conditions, or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence in Portuguese with zero waste—it directly states the tool's purpose and key feature (optional filters). It's appropriately sized for a list operation and front-loaded with essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (a list tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like pagination, response format, or error handling, which are critical for an AI agent to use the tool correctly. The lack of annotations and output schema increases the burden on the description, which it doesn't meet.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 75% (three parameters have descriptions, one 'top' has only a default), so the baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond the schema—it mentions 'filtros opcionais' (optional filters), which aligns with the schema's optional parameters, but doesn't explain filter logic (e.g., 'nameFilter' uses 'contains') or parameter interactions. No additional syntax or format details are provided.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Lista web resources com filtros opcionais' clearly states the action (list) and resource (web resources) in Portuguese. It distinguishes from siblings like dynamics_get_web_resource_content (which retrieves content) and dynamics_create/update/delete_web_resource (which modify resources). However, it doesn't specify the scope (e.g., all web resources in the system) or explicitly differentiate from other list tools like dynamics_list_solutions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions 'filtros opcionais' (optional filters), implying when to use parameters, but provides no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives. For example, it doesn't specify whether this is the primary listing tool for web resources or when to use it versus dynamics_list_solution_components (which might include web resources). No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 states the action ('publish') which implies a write operation, but doesn't clarify critical aspects like whether this is destructive (e.g., overwrites existing customizations), requires specific permissions, has side effects (e.g., system downtime), or rate limits. The description lacks behavioral context beyond the basic action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence in Portuguese that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand at a glance.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a publish operation in Dynamics (likely involving system changes), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'publish' entails (e.g., deployment to production, validation steps), potential impacts, error handling, or return values. For a tool that could affect system behavior, more context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'entityLogicalName' documented as 'Nome da entidade (vazio = publicar tudo)' (Entity name (empty = publish all)). The description adds minimal value beyond this, only restating that it can publish all customizations or those of a specific entity. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Publica' = Publish) and the target ('customizações' = customizations), specifying it can publish all customizations or those of a specific entity. It distinguishes itself from other publish-related tools like 'dynamics_publish_web_resources' by focusing on customizations rather than web resources. However, it could be more specific about what 'customizations' entail in the Dynamics context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing customizations to exist), exclusions, or compare it to sibling tools like 'dynamics_publish_web_resources' or 'dynamics_update_form' for similar publishing/updating tasks. Usage is implied but not explicitly defined.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but lacks behavioral details. It mentions making resources 'disponíveis no sistema' (available in the system), which implies a deployment or activation action, but doesn't specify if this is destructive, requires permissions, has side effects, or involves rate limits. More context on the publish operation's impact is needed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence in Portuguese that directly states the tool's purpose. It's front-loaded with the key action and resource, with no wasted words. However, it could be slightly more structured by including usage context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool that performs a publish operation (likely a mutation) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'publica' entails (e.g., deployment, activation), potential outcomes, error conditions, or system impacts. More detail is needed given the complexity implied by the action.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'webResourceIds' clearly documented as IDs of web resources to publish. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Publica' meaning 'Publish') and the resource ('web resources'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'dynamics_create_web_resource' (creation) and 'dynamics_delete_web_resource' (deletion), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'dynamics_publish_customizations' which might have overlapping functionality.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing existing web resources), exclusions, or compare it to similar tools like 'dynamics_publish_customizations'. The description only states what it does, not when it should be used.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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. It states this is a registration action, implying a write operation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like required permissions, whether it's idempotent, potential side effects, error handling, or response format. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely modifies system state.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words or fluff. It's front-loaded and efficiently communicates the core action, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of registering a plugin step in Dynamics CRM (a write operation with 8 parameters, 5 required), the description is insufficient. No annotations are provided to clarify behavior, and there's no output schema, so the agent lacks information on what the tool returns or how to handle outcomes. The description should explain more about the context and implications of use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, meaning all parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 without compensating for any gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Registra' = Registers) and the resource ('um novo step de plugin no Dynamics CRM'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'dynamics_list_plugin_steps' or 'dynamics_toggle_plugin_step', which would be needed for 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.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to register a new step versus listing existing steps or toggling them. There's no mention of prerequisites, dependencies, or typical use cases, leaving the agent with minimal context for decision-making.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 the tool 'activates or deactivates' a plugin step, which implies mutation but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like permission requirements, whether this is reversible, side effects, or what happens to the step's state. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence in Portuguese that directly states the tool's purpose with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand at a glance.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'activating' or 'deactivating' entails, potential side effects, error conditions, or what the tool returns. For a tool that modifies system state, more context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters clearly documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain what a 'stepId' represents or provide context for the 'enabled' parameter). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('ativa ou desativa' - activates or deactivates) and the resource ('um step de plugin' - a plugin step). It's specific about what the tool does, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'dynamics_delete_plugin_step' or 'dynamics_register_plugin_step'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are related sibling tools like 'dynamics_delete_plugin_step' and 'dynamics_register_plugin_step', but the description doesn't mention when to choose toggle versus delete/register, nor does it specify any prerequisites or context for usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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. 'Atualiza' (updates) implies a mutation operation, but the description doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like permission requirements, whether this is a destructive operation, what happens to existing form configurations, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence in Portuguese that directly states the tool's purpose. There's zero wasted language or unnecessary elaboration. It's appropriately sized for what it communicates.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
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 incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'updating form XML' entails operationally, what permissions are required, what validation occurs, or what the response contains. The context signals show this is a 2-parameter tool performing updates, which requires more behavioral disclosure than provided.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (formId, formXml) are documented in the schema. The description mentions 'XML de um formulário' which aligns with the formXml parameter, but adds no additional semantic context beyond what's already in the schema descriptions. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Atualiza o XML de um formulário' clearly states the action (update) and resource (form XML) in Portuguese. It's specific about what gets updated (XML of a form), but doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like dynamics_update_column or dynamics_update_web_resource, which also perform updates on different resources.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple update-related sibling tools (dynamics_update_column, dynamics_update_web_resource), but the description doesn't explain when this specific form XML update is appropriate versus other form-related operations like dynamics_get_forms.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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. While 'Atualiza' implies a mutation operation, it doesn't specify permissions required, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what happens to the description field when omitted. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence in Portuguese that states the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain behavioral aspects (permissions, side effects), doesn't clarify parameter usage (especially the undocumented 'description' field), and provides no information about return values or error conditions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 67% (2 of 3 parameters have descriptions). The description mentions 'conteúdo' which maps to the 'content' parameter, adding minimal value. However, it doesn't explain the purpose of the 'description' parameter (which has no schema description) or provide format details for 'webResourceId'. The description doesn't fully compensate for the schema gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Atualiza' - updates) and the resource ('conteúdo de um web resource existente' - content of an existing web resource). It distinguishes this from creation (dynamics_create_web_resource) and deletion (dynamics_delete_web_resource) tools, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other update tools like dynamics_update_column or dynamics_update_form.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (like needing an existing web resource), when not to use it, or how it differs from related tools like dynamics_publish_web_resources or dynamics_create_web_resource for new resources.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions Base64 decoding, which is useful behavioral context. However, it lacks details on permissions required, rate limits, error handling (e.g., for invalid IDs), or what the output looks like (e.g., raw content format).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence in Portuguese that directly states the tool's purpose with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval operation and front-loaded with the key action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the core action and Base64 decoding, but lacks context on usage, permissions, or output format, which would be helpful for an AI agent to invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'webResourceId' clearly documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any additional meaning about the parameter beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or where to obtain the ID. 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.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('recupera' meaning retrieves) and resource ('conteúdo de um web resource'), specifying it's decoded from Base64. It distinguishes from siblings like 'dynamics_list_web_resources' (which lists resources) and 'dynamics_create_web_resource' (which creates them), but doesn't explicitly mention this distinction in the description itself.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing web resource ID), when not to use it, or refer to sibling tools like 'dynamics_list_web_resources' for obtaining IDs first.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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. It states it's a list operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't specify whether it returns all steps or is paginated, what authentication or permissions are required, or any rate limits. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence in Portuguese that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and optional filtering. It's front-loaded with the main action and resource, with no redundant or unnecessary information, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a list operation with optional filtering), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and hints at parameters but lacks details on behavior, output format, or usage context. For a tool in this context, it should provide more guidance on what the list includes and how to interpret results.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description mentions optional filtering by entity, which corresponds to the 'entityLogicalName' parameter, adding context beyond the schema's description of 'Filtrar por entidade'. However, with 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents both parameters adequately. The description doesn't add significant semantic value for the 'pluginTypeId' parameter or clarify parameter interactions, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Lista os steps registrados') and resource ('para plugins'), making the purpose understandable. It specifies optional filtering by entity, which adds specificity. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'dynamics_list_plugin_types' or 'dynamics_list_plugin_assemblies', which also list plugin-related items.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions optional filtering by entity, implying usage when filtering is needed, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, when-not-to-use scenarios, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'dynamics_get_plugin_performance' or 'dynamics_get_plugin_trace_logs' that might overlap in context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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. It mentions checking dependencies before removal, which implies a read-only, non-destructive operation, but it does not specify details like whether it requires specific permissions, what the output format is, or if there are rate limits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior and constraints.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence: 'Verifica dependências de uma solução antes de remover'. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and includes the key context ('before removal') without unnecessary words. Every part of the sentence earns its place, making it highly efficient and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (dependency checking before deletion), the absence of annotations and output schema means the description should provide more behavioral and output details. It adequately states the purpose and implied usage but lacks information on what the check entails, what dependencies are considered, or what the result looks like. With no output schema, the description does not compensate fully, leaving gaps in completeness for safe operation understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'solutionUniqueName' documented as 'Nome único da solução' (Unique name of the solution). The description does not add any additional meaning or context beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Verifica dependências de uma solução antes de remover' (Checks dependencies of a solution before removal). It specifies the verb 'verifica' (checks) and the resource 'dependências de uma solução' (dependencies of a solution), making the intent explicit. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'dynamics_delete_solution' or 'dynamics_remove_solution_component', which are related to removal operations, so it misses full differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context by stating 'antes de remover' (before removal), suggesting this tool should be used prior to deletion operations. However, it does not explicitly name when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., 'dynamics_delete_solution' or 'dynamics_remove_solution_component'), nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites. The guidance is implied but not comprehensive.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcpDynamics MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/rafteles2016/mcpDynamics/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/rafteles2016/mcpDynamics)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcpDynamics MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/rafteles2016/mcpDynamics/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/rafteles2016/mcpDynamics)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/rafteles2016/mcpDynamics'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server