A
licenseB
qualityC
maintenanceA Model Context Protocol (MCP) server that provides intelligent access to PowerPlatform/Dataverse entities and records. This tool offers context-aware assistance, entity exploration and metadata access.
38
68
42
MIT
PowerPlatform MCP Server
by dayour
Click on "Install Server".
Wait a few minutes for the server to deploy. Once ready, it will show a "Started" state.
In the chat, type
@followed by the MCP server name and your instructions, e.g., "@PowerPlatform MCP ServerWhat are the attributes of the account entity?"
That's it! The server will respond to your query, and you can continue using it as needed.
Here is a step-by-step guide with screenshots.
PowerPlatform MCP Server
A Model Context Protocol (MCP) server that provides intelligent access to PowerPlatform/Dataverse entities and records. This tool offers context-aware assistance, entity exploration and metadata access.
Key features:
Rich entity metadata exploration with formatted, context-aware prompts
Advanced OData query support with intelligent filtering
Comprehensive relationship mapping and visualization
AI-assisted query building and data modeling through AI agent
Full access to entity attributes, relationships, and global option sets
Installation
You can install and run this tool in two ways:
Option 1: Install globally
npm install -g powerplatform-mcpThen run it:
powerplatform-mcpOption 2: Run directly with npx
Run without installing:
npx powerplatform-mcpRelated MCP server: Dataverse MCP Server
Configuration
Before running, set the following environment variables:
# PowerPlatform/Dataverse connection details
POWERPLATFORM_URL=https://yourenvironment.crm.dynamics.com
POWERPLATFORM_CLIENT_ID=your-azure-app-client-id
POWERPLATFORM_CLIENT_SECRET=your-azure-app-client-secret
POWERPLATFORM_TENANT_ID=your-azure-tenant-idUsage
This is an MCP server designed to work with MCP-compatible clients like Cursor, Claude App and GitHub Copilot. Once running, it will expose tools for retrieving PowerPlatform entity metadata and records.
Available Tools
get-entity-metadata: Get metadata about a PowerPlatform entityget-entity-attributes: Get attributes/fields of a PowerPlatform entityget-entity-attribute: Get a specific attribute/field of a PowerPlatform entityget-entity-relationships: Get relationships for a PowerPlatform entityget-global-option-set: Get a global option set definitionget-record: Get a specific record by entity name and IDquery-records: Query records using an OData filter expressionuse-powerplatform-prompt: Use pre-defined prompt templates for PowerPlatform entities
MCP Prompts
The server includes a prompts feature that provides formatted, context-rich information about PowerPlatform entities.
Available Prompt Types
The use-powerplatform-prompt tool supports the following prompt types:
ENTITY_OVERVIEW: Comprehensive overview of an entity
ATTRIBUTE_DETAILS: Detailed information about a specific entity attribute
QUERY_TEMPLATE: OData query template for an entity with example filters
RELATIONSHIP_MAP: Visual map of entity relationships
Examples
Entity Overview Prompt
// Example client code
await mcpClient.invoke("use-powerplatform-prompt", {
promptType: "ENTITY_OVERVIEW",
entityName: "account"
});Output:
## Power Platform Entity: account
This is an overview of the 'account' entity in Microsoft Power Platform/Dataverse:
### Entity Details
- Display Name: Account
- Schema Name: Account
- Description: Business that represents a customer or potential customer
- Primary Key: accountid
- Primary Name: name
### Key Attributes
- name: String (Account Name)
- emailaddress1: String (Email)
- telephone1: String (Main Phone)
- address1_city: String (City)
- statecode: Status (Status)
- accountnumber: String (Account Number)
- industrycode: OptionSetValue (Industry)
- revenue: Money (Annual Revenue)
- ownerid: Owner (Owner)
- createdon: DateTime (Created On)
### Relationships
- One-to-Many Relationships: 42
- Many-to-Many Relationships: 8
You can query this entity using OData filters against the plural name.Attribute Details Prompt
await mcpClient.invoke("use-powerplatform-prompt", {
promptType: "ATTRIBUTE_DETAILS",
entityName: "account",
attributeName: "revenue"
});Output:
## Attribute: revenue
Details for the 'revenue' attribute of the 'account' entity:
- Display Name: Annual Revenue
- Description: Annual revenue for the account
- Type: Money
- Format: Currency
- Is Required: No
- Is Searchable: true
### Usage Notes
- Data Type: Money
- Required: No
- Max Length: N/AQuery Template Prompt
await mcpClient.invoke("use-powerplatform-prompt", {
promptType: "QUERY_TEMPLATE",
entityName: "account"
});Output:
## OData Query Template for accounts
Use this template to build queries against the accounts entity:
accounts?$select=name,emailaddress1,telephone1, address1_city,statecode&$filter=name eq 'Example'&$orderby=name asc&$top=50Common Filter Examples
Equals:
name eq 'Contoso'Contains:
contains(name, 'Contoso')Greater than date:
createdon gt 2023-01-01T00:00:00ZMultiple conditions:
name eq 'Contoso' and statecode eq 0
#### Relationship Map Prompt
```javascript
await mcpClient.invoke("use-powerplatform-prompt", {
promptType: "RELATIONSHIP_MAP",
entityName: "contact"
});Output:
## Relationship Map for contact
This shows all relationships for the 'contact' entity:
### One-to-Many Relationships (contact as Primary)
- contact_activity_parties: contact (1) → activityparty (N)
- contact_connections1: contact (1) → connection (N)
- contact_connections2: contact (1) → connection (N)
- contact_customer_contacts: contact (1) → contact (N)
- contact_master_contact: contact (1) → contact (N)
### One-to-Many Relationships (contact as Related)
- account_primary_contact: account (1) → contact (N)
- customer_contacts: customer (1) → contact (N)
- system_user_contacts: systemuser (1) → contact (N)
### Many-to-Many Relationships
- contactleads_association: contact (N) ↔ lead (N)
- contactopportunities_association: contact (N) ↔ opportunity (N)
- contactquotes_association: contact (N) ↔ quote (N)Prompt Examples
Here are some examples of how you can interact with assistant using the PowerPlatform MCP prompts:
1. Entity Understanding
You can ask assistant about entities in natural language:
User: "Tell me about the Account entity in our PowerPlatform environment"
Response:
[uses ENTITY_OVERVIEW prompt internally]
Here's what I found about the Account entity:
- It's a core business entity representing customers and potential customers
- The primary identifier is 'accountid' and the primary name field is 'name'
- Key fields include:
* name (Account Name)
* emailaddress1 (Email)
* telephone1 (Main Phone)
* revenue (Annual Revenue)
- It has 42 one-to-many relationships and 8 many-to-many relationships2. Building Queries
You can ask for help constructing queries:
User: "Help me write a query to find active accounts with revenue over $1M in California"
Response:
[uses QUERY_TEMPLATE prompt internally]
Here's the OData query you need:
accounts?$select=name,revenue,statecode,address1_stateorprovince
&$filter=statecode eq 0
and revenue gt 1000000
and address1_stateorprovince eq 'California'
&$orderby=revenue desc
This query:
1. Selects relevant fields
2. Filters for active accounts (statecode eq 0)
3. Checks revenue > $1M
4. Filters for California location
5. Orders by revenue highest to lowest3. Understanding Relationships
You can explore entity relationships naturally:
User: "How are Accounts and Contacts related in our system?"
Response:
[uses RELATIONSHIP_MAP prompt for both entities internally]
Here are the key relationships between Accounts and Contacts:
1. Primary Contact (One-to-Many):
- account_primary_contact: Account (1) → Contact (N)
- An account can have many contacts, but one designated as primary
2. Customer Relationship:
- contact_customer_accounts: Contact (N) ← Account (1)
- Contacts can be associated with customer accounts
3. Additional Relationships:
- accountleads_association: For lead tracking
- account_connections: For relationship management4. Field/Attribute Investigation
You can ask about specific fields:
User: "What kind of field is the revenue field on Account?"
Response:
[uses ATTRIBUTE_DETAILS prompt internally]
The revenue field on Account is:
- Data Type: Money
- Format: Currency
- Not required
- Searchable: Yes
- Used for: Tracking annual revenue for the account
- Can be used in advanced find and filtered views5. Complex Data Modeling
You can get help with data modeling decisions:
User: "I need to design a solution for tracking product reviews. Which entities should I relate to?"
Response:
[uses multiple ENTITY_OVERVIEW and RELATIONSHIP_MAP prompts internally]
Based on the existing data model, here's a suggested approach:
1. Product (existing entity):
- Already has relationships with:
* Price lists
* Product categories
* Inventory units
2. New Review entity should relate to:
- Product (N:1) - Each review is for one product
- Contact (N:1) - Reviews are written by contacts
- Account (N:1) - Optional link to company if B2B review
Here's a sample lookup field structure...
[continues with detailed implementation guidance]6. Debugging Assistance
You can get help troubleshooting:
User: "Why am I getting 'invalid property' when querying account.customertypecode?"
Response:
[uses ATTRIBUTE_DETAILS prompt internally]
I see the issue. The field 'customertypecode' is actually named 'customertype' in your environment. Here's the correct field information:
- Logical Name: customertype
- Type: OptionSetValue
- Valid Values:
* 1 = Competitor
* 2 = Consultant
* 3 = Customer
* 4 = Investor
* 5 = Partner
* 6 = Influencer
Try updating your query to use 'customertype' instead of 'customertypecode'.These examples show how AI assistant can leverage the MCP prompts to provide context-aware, accurate assistance for PowerPlatform development tasks. The AI understands your environment's specific configuration and can help with both simple queries and complex architectural decisions.
License
MIT
Available Tools
8 toolsget-entity-attributeB
Get a specific attribute/field of a PowerPlatform entity
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| entityName | Yes | The logical name of the entity | |
| attributeName | Yes | The logical name of the attribute |
TDQS
B3.3/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It only states 'Get', which implies a read operation, but does not clarify whether it returns attribute metadata or a value, nor any permissions or return format. This leaves significant ambiguity.
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 a single concise sentence that directly states the tool's core purpose with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple getter.
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?
For a simple tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally viable but lacks usage context and clarity on return semantics, which could confuse an agent trying to select between this and related entity tools.
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?
The input schema already fully documents both parameters (entityName and attributeName) with logical name descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 the verb 'Get' and specifies the resource as 'a specific attribute/field of a PowerPlatform entity', clearly distinguishing it from siblings like get-entity-attributes (plural) and get-record. It is specific and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get-entity-attributes or get-record. The description lacks any contextual instructions or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get-entity-attributesB
Get attributes/fields of a PowerPlatform entity
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| entityName | Yes | The logical name of the entity |
TDQS
B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get', which implies read-only, but does not describe what is returned (e.g., field metadata vs. values), pagination, error behavior, or any side effects. This is a thin description for a tool with no structured safety hints.
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 a single, concise sentence that directly communicates the tool's purpose without unnecessary words or repetition. It is well-structured and easy to parse.
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?
For a simple tool with one well-documented parameter, the description is minimally viable but lacks details about the return value or output shape, which is significant since there is no output schema. It does not clarify whether attributes are returned as a list, dictionary, or with specific metadata, so completeness is moderate.
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?
The input schema covers the single parameter 'entityName' with a clear description ('The logical name of the entity'), giving 100% schema coverage. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states the action ('Get') and the resource ('attributes/fields of a PowerPlatform entity'). It distinguishes from the sibling 'get-entity-attribute' by using the plural form, indicating it retrieves multiple attributes rather than a single one. However, it could be more explicit about the scope (e.g., listing all attributes) to fully align with the best examples.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get-entity-attribute' or 'get-entity-metadata'. It does not mention scenarios, exclusions, or relationships to sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get-entity-metadataC
Get metadata about a PowerPlatform entity
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| entityName | Yes | The logical name of the entity |
TDQS
C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read operation but does not state side effects, return format, or any operational constraints. The absence of detail leaves the agent uncertain about what to expect.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence without fluff. It is efficient, but the brevity contributes to under-specification, preventing a higher score.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, no annotations, and a single parameter, the description is too minimal to be complete. It does not explain what metadata is returned, how it relates to sibling tools, or any usage notes that would help an agent invoke it correctly.
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?
The schema fully describes 'entityName' (100% coverage). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline but does not enhance understanding.
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 states the verb and resource: 'Get metadata about a PowerPlatform entity'. This is clear and specific. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like get-entity-attributes or get-entity-relationships, which are also about entity metadata.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description only says 'Get metadata', without specifying scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. Sibling tools are more specific, but no comparison is made.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get-entity-relationshipsA
Get relationships (one-to-many and many-to-many) for a PowerPlatform entity
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| entityName | Yes | The logical name of the entity |
TDQS
A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read operation ('Get') and specifies the relationship types, but it fails to mention permissions, return format, or any side effects. No contradiction exists.
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?
One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It earns its place by specifying cardinalities.
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 simple single-parameter getter, the description is adequately complete: it names the entity type and the kinds of relationships returned. However, with no output schema or return-format hints, some uncertainty about the response structure remains, but it's sufficient for tool selection.
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?
The only parameter, entityName, has a clear schema description ('The logical name of the entity'), achieving 100% schema coverage. The tool description adds little beyond restating 'for a PowerPlatform entity', so the schema already provides the meaning.
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 action ('Get') and the resource ('relationships'), further narrowed by entity type ('PowerPlatform entity') and relationship kinds ('one-to-many and many-to-many'). This distinguishes it from siblings like get-entity-attributes or get-entity-metadata.
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 via its purpose, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over siblings, nor does it provide exclusions or alternatives. Sibling names are not referenced in the description itself.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get-global-option-setA
Get a global option set definition by name
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| optionSetName | Yes | The name of the global option set |
TDQS
A3.6/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It simply says 'Get', indicating a read operation, but does not mention potential errors, permissions, return format, or side effects. The description is minimal and lacks behavioral context beyond the obvious read-only nature.
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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the core action and resource, with zero extraneous words. It is perfectly concise and well-structured for its simplicity.
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 simple getter with one well-documented parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate. It clearly states the tool's purpose and input. While it could mention return details or failure behavior, the low complexity makes this a minor gap, so it earns a 4 rather than 3.
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?
The single parameter optionSetName has 100% schema description coverage ('The name of the global option set'). The description's 'by name' aligns with the schema but adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 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 'Get a global option set definition by name' uses a specific verb (Get) and resource (global option set definition), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like get-entity-metadata and get-record. It is unambiguous and directly conveys the tool's function.
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?
Usage context is implied by the resource name and sibling tools (e.g., this is for option sets, not entity metadata or records), but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions or alternative references are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get-recordA
Get a specific record by entity name (plural) and ID
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| recordId | Yes | The GUID of the record | |
| entityNamePlural | Yes | The plural name of the entity (e.g., 'accounts', 'contacts') |
TDQS
A3.5/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the basic 'get' action and does not disclose behavior for missing records, authorization requirements, or response details. The only extra detail (entity name must be plural) is already present in the 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?
The description is a single sentence that immediately conveys the core purpose and required inputs. It is concise, front-loaded, and contains 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?
For a simple two-parameter get tool, the description is minimally adequate but has clear gaps: it does not describe the return format or error behavior, and there is no output schema to compensate.
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 coverage is 100% for both parameters, with clear descriptions for entityNamePlural and recordId. The tool description adds no new meaning beyond restating these identifiers, so the baseline 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 clearly states the tool's function: retrieving a specific record by entity name (plural) and ID. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like query-records (which lists records) and get-entity-metadata (which retrieves metadata).
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 for fetching a single known record by ID, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like query-records. There is no when-not-to-use or alternative guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
query-recordsB
Query records using an OData filter expression
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| filter | Yes | OData filter expression (e.g., "name eq 'test'" or "createdon gt 2023-01-01") | |
| maxRecords | No | Maximum number of records to retrieve (default: 50) | |
| entityNamePlural | Yes | The plural name of the entity (e.g., 'accounts', 'contacts') |
TDQS
B3.3/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only says 'query records' and does not mention whether the operation is read-only, how pagination works, what happens on invalid filters, or what the return format looks like. This is minimal disclosure for a query tool.
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 a single, clear sentence that directly states the tool's purpose with no filler or redundancy. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity and front-loads the key action.
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 relatively simple with 3 parameters and no output schema. However, the description does not clarify what the query returns (e.g., a list of records) or how maxRecords and pagination behave, which would be helpful. Given the high schema coverage and straightforward nature, this is adequate but not complete.
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?
The schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters, including examples for the filter expression. The description's mention of 'OData filter expression' adds no new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 tool's function: 'Query records using an OData filter expression'. The verb 'query' plus the resource 'records' makes the action specific, and it naturally distinguishes from sibling tools like get-record (single record retrieval) and metadata tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios such as filtering a list, nor does it exclude cases like single-record lookup. The only clue is the name and the OData filter mention, which is implicit rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
use-powerplatform-promptC
Use a predefined prompt template for PowerPlatform entities
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| entityName | Yes | The logical name of the entity | |
| promptType | Yes | The type of prompt template to use | |
| attributeName | No | The logical name of the attribute (required for ATTRIBUTE_DETAILS prompt) |
TDQS
C2.7/5.0
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as whether the tool is read-only, deterministic, requires authentication, or has side effects. The single sentence conveys purpose only, with no insight into how the operation behaves or what output to expect.
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 a single, direct sentence with no redundant words. It is appropriately sized for a simple purpose statement and front-loads the verb.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description fails to explain what the tool returns, how promptType and attributeName interact, or what the entity name should reference. It is too sparse to be contextually complete for an agent to invoke correctly without further information.
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%, with each parameter already documented. The description adds no additional parameter context beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
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 uses a clear verb ('Use') and resource ('predefined prompt template for PowerPlatform entities'), distinguishing it from sibling tools that all retrieve metadata or records. However, it does not specify what 'using' produces (e.g., a generated prompt string), so it lacks full clarity about the tool's output.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool instead of the sibling tools. There is no mention of specific use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. The description is purely declarative and gives no contextual direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Tool Schema Changelog
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
8 tool updates
v0.4.5- First observed
get-entity-attribute - First observed
get-entity-attributes - First observed
get-entity-metadata - First observed
get-entity-relationships - First observed
get-global-option-set - First observed
get-record - First observed
query-records - First observed
use-powerplatform-prompt
TDQS
A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct resource or operation: entity metadata, attributes (list vs. single), relationships, option sets, records by ID, querying, and prompt usage. Even get-entity-attributes vs get-entity-attribute are clearly list vs. get, so no ambiguity.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent lowercase hyphenated verb-noun pattern (get-*, query-records, use-*). The verbs are clear and nouns are specific, making the set predictable and easy to navigate.
Tool Count5/5
With 8 tools, the server is well-scoped for a PowerPlatform metadata and query assistant. Each tool addresses a distinct need without redundancy or bloat, fitting comfortably within the ideal 3-15 range.
Completeness3/5
The set covers metadata retrieval (entity, attributes, relationships, option sets) and record querying, but lacks critical operations like listing all entities or creating/updating/deleting records. For a read-only explorer it's decent, but the missing list-entities and lifecycle operations create notable gaps.
Maintenance
ActivityInactive
ResponsivenessNo issues
Resources
Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.
Looking for Admin?
If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.
Related MCP Connectors
Governed data discovery, exact queries, decisions, simulations, and runtime utilities over MCP.
Official Microsoft MCP Server to query Microsoft Entra data using natural language
Let AI agents query data and act across all your business apps via MCP.
- BasedashOAuthcom.basedash
Governed BI MCP. Ask questions of live company data and list workspace sources via OAuth.
Related MCP Servers
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceEnables comprehensive schema and solution management for Microsoft Dataverse, including operations for tables, columns, relationships, and security roles via the Dataverse Web API. It also supports PowerPages configuration, automated WebAPI call generation, and schema visualization through Mermaid ERD diagrams.MIT
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceEnables CRUD operations and schema exploration on Microsoft Dataverse databases using service principal authentication. It allows users to query records with OData filters, manage table entries, and retrieve metadata through a standardized MCP interface.-
- AlicenseAqualityAmaintenanceEnables AI agents to query, inspect, and manage Microsoft Dataverse records, metadata, schema, forms, views, and Power Platform environments via the Dataverse OData Web API.972MIT
Latest Blog Posts
- Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)By Om-Shree-0709 on .mcpAgent IdentityOAuth 2.1
- Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an InternBy Om-Shree-0709 on .Agent IdentityMCP SecurityOAuth Delegation
- Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)By Om-Shree-0709 on .Agentic AiPrompt InjectionWebAssembly
MCP directory API
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/dayour/powerplatform-mcp'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server