Modify an existing Microsoft Dataverse record by supplying the entity set, record GUID, and key-value fields to change.
Update an existing record in a Dataverse table
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Record GUID | |
| data | Yes | Fields to update as key-value pairs | |
| 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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a mutation but does not state whether the update is partial or full (the 'data' field hints at partial, but the description never confirms), what permissions are needed, what happens if the record id does not exist, or whether changes are reversible.
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 short sentence with zero waste, front-loading the action and resource. It is appropriately sized even if arguably too thin to be maximally useful.
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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a nested free-form data object, the description is inadequate. It never explains update semantics (partial vs replace), error behavior, or return shape, leaving the agent to guess at call behavior.
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 (GUID), entity_set (plural set name) and data (key-value fields to update). The description adds nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 (Update) and resource (an existing record in a Dataverse table), which is enough to tell it apart from create_record, delete_record and get_record by verb alone. It is clear but adds no sibling differentiation beyond the verb, and says nothing about the table/entity scope beyond 'Dataverse table'.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives such as update_attribute or create_record. The agent must infer that this is the write path for an existing row purely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.