Dataverse MCP Server

dataverse_get_async_operation

Read-onlyIdempotent

Get a Dataverse async operation by its GUID to view system job details: state, status, messages, start/end times, and related record.

Instructions

Retrieve a single asyncoperation (system job) record by its GUID.

Returns the full record including name, operationtype, statecode, statuscode, message, friendlymessage, startedon, completedon, and _regardingobjectid_value. Also includes statecode_label and statuscode_label for human readability.

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": {
      "params": "<params>"
    },
    "name": "dataverse_get_async_operation"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`params`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv3.6.0Jul 15, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by listing the returned fields (e.g., name, operationtype, statecode), which is beyond the annotations but does not disclose potential rate limits or auth requirements.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and no extraneous information.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The tool is simple and has an output schema, so the description is adequate but lacks usage guidelines and parameter context. It lists many return fields, which compensates partially for the missing output schema display.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% per context, and the description does not add any detail beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. It only mentions 'by its GUID' without elaborating on parameter usage or formats.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb 'Retrieve' and the resource 'asyncoperation (system job) record by its GUID', distinguishing it from sibling tools like dataverse_list_async_operations.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage when you have a specific GUID, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like dataverse_list_async_operations, nor does it mention prerequisites.

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

Deploy Server