Horizun PBI MCP

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

pbi_finalize_delivery

Finalize a Power BI project as a ready-to-deliver .pbix or .pbit file: validates the project, exports via Power BI Desktop, and returns verified output path, SHA-256, and size.

Instructions

El ULTIMO paso de una construccion: del proyecto al entregable.

Hace de extremo a extremo lo que hasta ahora eran cinco llamadas y un par de suposiciones: resuelve el archivo exacto que le pasas, lo prepara -convirtiendolo si le das un .pbix-, valida el proyecto, exporta a .pbix conduciendo Power BI Desktop, inspecciona el resultado y deja abierto justo el entregable, seleccionado como modelo activo.

Una sola respuesta verificable: output_pbix, output_sha256, output_size, saved_as_verified y opened_path_verified.

path (o su alias project_path) se puede omitir para usar el proyecto activo. format: 'pbix' o 'pbit' (plantilla: informe y definicion del modelo, sin datos; producida por el propio Guardar como de Desktop, nunca fabricada a mano). Requiere Windows con Power BI Desktop instalado.

confirm_reuse=true autoriza conducir una ventana que ya estaba abierta por el usuario. Sin esa autorizacion el flujo falla cerrado, igual que pbi_export_pbix.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Default
`path`	No
`format`	No	pbix
`refresh`	No	auto
`out_path`	No
`overwrite`	No
`leave_open`	No
`request_id`	No
`project_path`	No
`confirm_reuse`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv2.1.1Sep 6, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / confirm_reuse

Added value: +{
+  "default": false,
+  "title": "Confirm Reuse",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / project_path

Added value: +{
+  "default": "",
+  "title": "Project Path",
+  "type": "string"
+}

Addedv2.1.0Aug 30, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With all annotations false, the description carries full burden and succeeds: it discloses that the tool drives Power BI Desktop, converts .pbix input, validates, exports, inspects, and leaves the deliverable open as the active model. It also reveals the fail-closed confirm_reuse behavior and the 'never hand-made' pbit guarantee — exactly the side-effect and safety context an agent needs.

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 longer than average but well structured with clear paragraphs: role, pipeline, response contract, parameters, environment, and authorization flag. A few phrases like 'un par de suposiciones' are stylistic filler, but the key scoping constraint is front-loaded.

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 complex tool with an output schema, the description covers the end-to-end workflow, environment requirement, side effects, fail-closed authorization, format semantics, and the verification contract. The main remaining gap is the undocumented refresh/out_path/overwrite/request_id semantics, keeping it just short of 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate; it does meaningfully explain path/project_path aliasing and omitability, the format values with pbit template semantics, and confirm_reuse's authorization meaning. However, refresh, out_path, overwrite, and request_id remain undocumented in both schema and description — a significant gap for a 9-parameter tool.

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 states a precise role: it is the final delivery step that transforms a project into a .pbix/.pbit deliverable through a complete pipeline — resolve, prepare, validate, export via Desktop, inspect, and leave open. It also names the verifiable response contract and contrasts with pbi_export_pbix, making it distinguishable from the long sibling list.

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?

It explicitly positions itself as 'El ULTIMO paso de una construccion' and frames its value as replacing five sequential calls, telling an agent exactly where in the workflow it belongs. It also states the Windows + Power BI Desktop prerequisite and the fail-closed behavior shared with pbi_export_pbix. It does not enumerate which sibling should be used when only part of the pipeline is needed.

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

Deploy Server