powerbi-orchestrator-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

abbreviate_names

Proposes shorter names for overlong Power BI measures and columns, flags names that need manual shortening, and returns a rename map for safe batch changes.

Instructions

Propose shorter names for the measures and columns that need them.

Use this tool when the user asks to:

Shorten, abbreviate or tidy up measure and column names.
Find the names that have grown too long to read.
Prepare a batch of renames before applying them.

Args: pbip_path: Path to the root .pbip directory. kind: "measures", "columns" or "both". max_length: Above this length, a name is a candidate. abbreviate_words: Shorten the words that have a standard abbreviation ("Amount" to "Amt", "Quantity" to "Qty"). drop_filler_words: Drop the words that carry no meaning ("of", "the", "in").

Returns: Dict with the proposals and a rename map ready for plan_change(intent="safe_rename").

It does not rename anything. A name that cannot be shortened
without changing what it says is reported as needing a name by
hand, and a proposal that would collide with an existing name
is adjusted.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`kind`	No	both
`pbip_path`	Yes
`max_length`	No
`abbreviate_words`	No
`drop_filler_words`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv1.23.0Oct 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that the tool is non-mutating, that unshortenable names are reported instead of forced, and that colliding proposals are auto-adjusted. It does not mention scope of scanning, permissions on the .pbip directory, or limits on proposal volume.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in one sentence, and the Args/Returns structure is scannable. Some duplication exists between the trigger list and the Args block, but given 0% schema coverage the repetition earns its place.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a five-parameter, read-only proposal tool this covers what an agent needs: what it does, when to call it, each parameter's meaning, the non-mutating guarantee, and the handoff path to plan_change. An output schema exists, and the Returns note adds the useful downstream pointer rather than restating the shape.

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

Parameters5/5

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, and it does: every one of the five parameters is explained, including the valid values for 'kind' ("measures", "columns", or "both") which the schema leaves as a bare string with no enum, plus the semantics of the length threshold and the two word-shortening flags.

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?

Specific verb and resource: 'Propose shorter names for the measures and columns that need them.' It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the mutating siblings by stating 'It does not rename anything', so an agent can tell it apart from plan_change/apply_plan without opening any schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The 'Use this tool when the user asks to' list gives three concrete trigger scenarios, including the preparatory case ('Prepare a batch of renames before applying them'). The handoff to plan_change(intent="safe_rename") names the downstream alternative explicitly, and the no-rename boundary rules out misuse.

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