Skip to main content
Glama

ALM X++ MCP Server

by io.github.alimbenhelal-pro

diff_model_versions

Read-onlyIdempotent

Compare two D365 F&O KB snapshots to produce a changelog (added/removed/modified objects). Use action 'save_baseline' once, then 'compare' between two snapshots.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
path1YesFor 'compare': path to baseline cache file. For 'compare_caches': path to first cache. For 'save_baseline': output path for the baseline file.
actionYesAction: 'compare' (current vs baseline), 'compare_caches' (two cache files), or 'save_baseline' (save current state)
filterModelNoOptional: filter to a specific model name
path2OrLabelNoOptional: For 'compare_caches': path to second cache file. For 'compare'/'save_baseline': label for the baseline.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description need not repeat them. It adds the useful behavioral detail that a baseline must be saved before comparing, implying persistent local state. The save_baseline action's local file write does not contradict the readOnlyHint annotation since it does not mutate the external D365 system.

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?

Two sentences with no filler: the purpose statement is front-loaded, and the usage guideline follows immediately. Every word contributes value.

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 description covers the primary workflow but fails to mention the 'compare_caches' action, so an agent reading only the description would not know that direct cache-to-cache comparison is possible. It does not describe the changelog return format beyond naming the categories, though no output schema exists. Overall moderately complete but with a clear gap.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so each parameter is already documented per action. The description adds a temporal relationship between parameters (save baseline first) but no additional parameter syntax or format details, 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.

Purpose5/5

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

The description uses a specific verb ('Compare') and resource ('two D365 F&O KB snapshots') and names the output ('changelog with added/removed/modified objects'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like compare_objects or list_objects, which operate on different resources or produce different outputs.

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?

The description gives an explicit workflow: 'Use action save_baseline once, then compare between two snapshots,' which explains the required ordering. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, and it omits the third action (compare_caches), so it stops short of a full 5.

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

All ALM X++ MCP Server toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Multiple tools overlap heavily: ado_analyze_pr_impact and ado_review_xpp_pr both review PR impact; get_object_details/get_object_context, find_related_objects/get_relation_graph, and find_callers/find_references/find_change_impact duplicate each other. The consolidated dmf tool plus five dedicated dmf_* tools also create ambiguous entry points, making misselection likely.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most tools use readable snake_case verb_noun names, but conventions are mixed: domain prefixes (ado_, dmf_, odata_, appinsights_) coexist with generic verbs (find_, generate_, get_), and healthcheck breaks the pattern. Similar actions are also named inconsistently, such as find_callers vs find_change_impact and generate_data_entity vs find_entity_for_table.

Tool Count1/5

At 90 tools this is far beyond a focused ALM server; the surface spans ADO, DMF, OData, App Insights, code search, security, release notes, wiki, and code generation. Even for a broad D365 F&O scope, 90 tools is an extreme count that makes discovery and selection difficult.

Completeness4/5

The breadth leaves few obvious dead ends: ADO work items/PRs/wikis, DMF/OData data movement, code analysis, security, and release-note generation all have lifecycle coverage. Minor gaps exist, such as no PR creation/update/abandon and no work-item deletion, but agents can complete core workflows without significant workarounds.

Resources