Skip to main content
Glama
rafteles2016

MCP Dynamics CRM Server

by rafteles2016

dynamics_get_forms

Retrieve entity forms from Microsoft Dynamics CRM to access main, quick create, quick view, or card layouts for development and customization workflows.

Instructions

Recupera formulários de uma entidade

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
entityLogicalNameYesNome lógico da entidade
formTypeNomain
formIdNoID específico do formulário

Implementation Reference

  • Implementation and registration of the dynamics_get_forms tool.
    server.tool(
      "dynamics_get_forms",
      "Recupera formulários de uma entidade",
      GetFormSchema.shape,
      async (params: z.infer<typeof GetFormSchema>) => {
        const formTypeCode = FORM_TYPE_MAP[params.formType];
        let filter = `objecttypecode eq '${params.entityLogicalName}' and type eq ${formTypeCode}`;
        if (params.formId) {
          filter += ` and formid eq '${params.formId}'`;
        }
    
        const result = await client.list("systemforms", {
          select: ["formid", "name", "description", "type", "formxml", "objecttypecode", "isdefault"],
          filter,
          orderby: "name asc",
        });
    
        return {
          content: [
            {
              type: "text" as const,
              text: `Formulários encontrados: ${result.value.length}\n\n${JSON.stringify(result.value, null, 2)}`,
            },
          ],
        };
      }
    );
  • Schema definition for the inputs of the dynamics_get_forms tool.
    export const GetFormSchema = z.object({
      entityLogicalName: z.string().describe("Nome lógico da entidade"),
      formType: z.enum(["main", "quickcreate", "quickview", "card"]).default("main"),
      formId: z.string().optional().describe("ID específico do formulário"),
    });
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.

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

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