dataverse-mcp-server

invoke_function

Executes read-only Dataverse Web API functions, bound or unbound, such as WhoAmI or RetrieveDuplicates. Pass entity_set and id for bound calls; parameters are inlined as OData arguments.

Instructions

Invoke a Dataverse Web API function (GET) — bound or unbound. Use for read-only operations exposed as functions, e.g. WhoAmI (unbound) or RetrieveDuplicates. Pass entity_set+id for bound functions, neither for unbound. parameters are inlined into the URL as OData function arguments.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "invoke_function"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	No	Record GUID the bound function targets. Required iff entity_set is set.
`name`	Yes	Function name, e.g. 'WhoAmI'. The Microsoft.Dynamics.CRM. namespace is added for bound calls and may be omitted.
`entity_set`	No	Entity set (plural) for a bound function. Omit for unbound functions.
`parameters`	No	Function parameters, inlined as OData arguments. Strings are quoted, GUIDs/numbers/booleans passed as-is.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv0.9.1Nov 5, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / name / description

Previous value: -"Function name, e.g. 'WhoAmI'. Bare names are namespaced automatically for bound calls; pass a fully-qualified name to override."New value: +"Function name, e.g. 'WhoAmI'. The Microsoft.Dynamics.CRM. namespace is added for bound calls and may be omitted."

Changed1 schema field changedv0.9.0Oct 3, 2026

changedInput schema / $schema

Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"

First observedv0.5.0Jul 31, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the important behavioral traits: this is a GET/read-only call, arguments are inlined into the URL as OData function arguments, and the namespace is auto-added for bound calls. It says nothing about authentication/permission requirements, error behavior, or what the response looks like for a tool with no output schema.

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?

Three sentences, all front-loaded and each earning its place: what it is, when to use it, and how to shape the arguments. No redundant restatement of the tool name or title.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a generic function-invocation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the calling mechanics (bound vs unbound, argument inlining) well enough to invoke correctly. It is slightly incomplete in not hinting at the return shape or failure modes, but that is a minor gap given the 100%-covered input schema.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning beyond the schema by stating the binding contract in one place: entity_set+id for bound, neither for unbound. It also clarifies that the Microsoft.Dynamics.CRM. namespace may be omitted, which is a practical detail not obvious from the parameter descriptions alone.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ("Invoke a Dataverse Web API function") plus the HTTP verb (GET) and the bound/unbound scope, which lets an agent distinguish it from the mutation-oriented siblings in the list. It stops short of naming invoke_action as the POST/action counterpart, so the differentiation is implied by "GET" and "read-only" rather than stated.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

"Use for read-only operations exposed as functions" gives a clear when-to-use condition, and the examples (WhoAmI, RetrieveDuplicates) ground it. The bound vs unbound routing rule ("Pass entity_set+id for bound functions, neither for unbound") is explicit, but there is no exclusion telling the agent to use invoke_action for side-effecting operations.

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