Retrieve Dataverse solution names and unique names to filter entities. Returns unmanaged solutions by default; set include_managed to include managed ones.
List Dataverse solutions (uniquename is used to filter list_entities)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| include_managed | No | Include managed solutions (default: false — only unmanaged are returned) |
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, and it discloses almost nothing: no read-only confirmation, no permissions, no return shape or pagination. The only behavioral fact (default excludes managed solutions) already lives in the schema, not the description.
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?
One short sentence with a front-loaded verb+resource and a compact parenthetical. Efficient, though the parenthetical is slightly cryptic about what exactly is returned.
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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is adequate but thin: it never states what a listed solution contains (names, uniquenames, managed flags), which matters since no output schema documents the return.
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?
There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already explains include_managed and its default. The description adds no syntax or semantics beyond that, making the baseline 3 correct.
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?
States a specific verb and resource: 'List Dataverse solutions'. The parenthetical ties it to list_entities, hinting at its role in the tool family, though it does not fully distinguish it from other listing siblings such as list_entities.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The parenthetical implies a workflow (list solutions to obtain a uniquename, then pass it to list_entities), which is useful implied usage. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no named alternative to pick instead.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.