Retrieve a single record by ID from a Dataverse table, with optional column selection and related entity expansion.
Get a single record by ID from a Dataverse table
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Record GUID | |
| expand | No | Related entities to expand ($expand) | |
| select | No | Comma-separated list of columns to return ($select) | |
| entity_set | Yes | Entity set name (plural, e.g. 'accounts', 'contacts') |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.9.0Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Get' implies a read, but there is no mention of permissions required, behavior on a missing/invalid GUID, throttling, or whether a null/error is returned — significant gaps 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It is appropriately sized, though its brevity is arguably under-specification rather than true conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple single-record read with all four parameters documented in the schema, the essentials are present. With no output schema and no annotations, the description could still say what the response contains or how errors surface, so it is only minimally adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents id, entity_set, expand, and select. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb (Get) and resource (a single record) scoped by ID from a Dataverse table, which implicitly separates it from query_records (bulk) and the create/update/delete siblings. It does not explicitly name or contrast with any sibling, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no when-to-use guidance: nothing says to prefer this over query_records when you lack an ID, nor what to do if the record is missing. The only usage signal is the phrase 'by ID', which the agent must infer from.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.